[opensuse] Writing coments on photos problem - yes, again! O:-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sigh. I'm scanning old photographic negatives with a compact scanner (a reflecta X7), and writing comments on the photos with Gwenview. But I have a problem: other programs do not see them. I don't see them with exif tools, for instance. I don't see them with shotwell. Conversely, if I write the comments with shotwell (which is configured to write metadata to the photos, not to a database), I don't see them in gwenview (but they do with "exif", tag "User Comment") I hesitate to continue writing comments till I verify that they are in fact written to the photo files, and that other programs read them. I don't see any configuration option in Gwenview regarding this. (why Gwenview? Because rotating photos is fast here, and it doesn't do any library import. For the moment I only want to put each roll in its own directory. Writing comments is also easy, although they are easyer to see in Shotwell) I'm not doing photo edit for the moment. Just archiving. (Old slides have lost a lot of the colour) - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlas0FwACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UEoQCdHIpxWHvJwjqel85l16buM0KN uhAAn2QdWpgq54RUYOsRu94mrfHVSXkw =Ijn9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/01/16 16:01, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Sigh.
I'm scanning old photographic negatives with a compact scanner (a reflecta X7), and writing comments on the photos with Gwenview. But I have a problem: other programs do not see them.
I don't see them with exif tools, for instance.
I don't see them with shotwell.
Conversely, if I write the comments with shotwell (which is configured to write metadata to the photos, not to a database), I don't see them in gwenview (but they do with "exif", tag "User Comment")
I hesitate to continue writing comments till I verify that they are in fact written to the photo files, and that other programs read them.
I don't see any configuration option in Gwenview regarding this.
(why Gwenview? Because rotating photos is fast here, and it doesn't do any library import. For the moment I only want to put each roll in its own directory. Writing comments is also easy, although they are easyer to see in Shotwell)
I'm not doing photo edit for the moment. Just archiving.
(Old slides have lost a lot of the colour)
I still haven't toyed enough with semantic info to know for sure how all this works, but my first thought is perhaps you are confusing two different tagging systems that don't interoperate. The comments in Gwenview, if you're talking about those for example that can be added the same as tags or ratings and added from other applications such as Dolphin, are not saved in the EXIF info. Likewise, those in EXIF info wouldn't show as Comments in the KDE semantic info. However, looking at my own Gwenview (4.11.5 on oS 13.1) I'm having difficulty finding where you can even add comments. There is only the Edit Metadata dialog which I've never looked at before. Is that what you're referring to? gumb -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-30 16:50, gumb wrote:
On 30/01/16 16:01, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I still haven't toyed enough with semantic info to know for sure how all this works, but my first thought is perhaps you are confusing two different tagging systems that don't interoperate.
The comments in Gwenview, if you're talking about those for example that can be added the same as tags or ratings and added from other applications such as Dolphin, are not saved in the EXIF info. Likewise, those in EXIF info wouldn't show as Comments in the KDE semantic info.
Argh. The KDE semantic...
However, looking at my own Gwenview (4.11.5 on oS 13.1) I'm having difficulty finding where you can even add comments. There is only the Edit Metadata dialog which I've never looked at before. Is that what you're referring to?
You have to display the left panel for the photo. The bottom half is a largish area where I can write text. I now notice that it is labelled "semantic information" :-/ There is a click to "edit" exif tags. Ok, then I can not use Gwenview to edit the comments. I'll have to use some other tool to write them. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 30/01/16 17:03, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-01-30 16:50, gumb wrote:
However, looking at my own Gwenview (4.11.5 on oS 13.1) I'm having difficulty finding where you can even add comments. There is only the Edit Metadata dialog which I've never looked at before. Is that what you're referring to?
You have to display the left panel for the photo. The bottom half is a largish area where I can write text. I now notice that it is labelled "semantic information" :-/
There is a click to "edit" exif tags.
I knew this Comments box existed but it's disappeared from my 13.1 install. I just fired up Leap in a VM and there it shows up. I think that's because I unticked the Enable Nepomuk Semantic Desktop option in the System Settings on 13.1. You can edit all the EXIF info within Gwenview by going to Plugins -> Images -> Edit All Metadata... assuming you have the KIPI plugins installed. However, there's a problem with the functionality. Since this dialog is a rather obscure option it doesn't have a shortcut assigned and so is cumbersome to launch for every image. I can't even find a way to assign a shortcut using Settings -> Configure Shortcuts... I just had a look at ShowFoto, the image editing component of Digikam. Annoyingly that doesn't seem to have any functionality for editing Comments tags either. Even displaying them seems to be a black art. In some cases I can't make them show up even if I go into the settings and explicitly select them under the Metadata -> EXIF tab. Alas it looks like the most common KDE tools fail on this one. A standalone utility might be the best way to go. gumb -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/30/2016 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Sigh.
Indeed.
I'm scanning old photographic negatives with a compact scanner (a reflecta X7), and writing comments on the photos with Gwenview. But I have a problem: other programs do not see them.
by using gwenview I take it you are not writing the comments on the image. That would require GIMP.
I don't see them with exif tools, for instance.
Of course not. Gwenview, like Dolphin, whites to an outside file, its own database. Similarly if you add a comment or otherwise manipulate the file using Darktable, it writes it to a file-specific 'sidebar' file. The later is clear since the file is not hidden. I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database somewhere or in a hidden file. BUT gwenview/dolphin do not write to the meatadata INSIDE the image.
Conversely, if I write the comments with shotwell (which is configured to write metadata to the photos, not to a database), I don't see them in gwenview (but they do with "exif", tag "User Comment")
That's correct. You can also update the metadata using exif or exiftool. You might note that gwenview and dolphin are KDE tools.
I hesitate to continue writing comments till I verify that they are in fact written to the photo files, and that other programs read them.
Whether other programs can read them boils down to this If you expect to move or copy the photo and expect the comment to go with it, you need to put the comment inside the image using exif. If you then expect to be able to read the comment you need to have the application understand exif. If you are only ever going to use KDE and programs such as gwenview and dolphin that use the database, then exif doesn't come into it.
I don't see any configuration option in Gwenview regarding this.
There is an option, a plugin to display the exif/IPC metadata within gwenview, and a popup that lets you choose what metadata you want displayed in the sidebar. Press the "more" button in the sidebar. There are probably hundreds of other programs that don't use the gwenview database. If, for example, you move the photo to your tablet or a 'electronic picture frame' then the gwenview or dolphin comment won't go with it, whereas the exif will. That doesn't mean any specific application on the tablet etc is capable of inspecting or displaying the exif information. The exif and the gwenview/dolphin database information are mutually exclusive. I think you realise that. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-30 17:05, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/30/2016 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database somewhere or in a hidden file.
BUT gwenview/dolphin do not write to the meatadata INSIDE the image.
I had forgotten about the "KDE semantic whatever" (database?) Clearly I can not use gwenview to write the comments. Shotwell is a candidate, but I'd prefer something similar to gwenview, because it runs faster and doesn't "import" photos. A GUI tool, not CLI.
That's correct. You can also update the metadata using exif or exiftool.
You might note that gwenview and dolphin are KDE tools.
I'll have a look at gnome tools instead ;-)
There are probably hundreds of other programs that don't use the gwenview database. If, for example, you move the photo to your tablet or a 'electronic picture frame' then the gwenview or dolphin comment won't go with it, whereas the exif will. That doesn't mean any specific application on the tablet etc is capable of inspecting or displaying the exif information.
That's the point, I want the comments in exif area, inside the jpegs. Portable.
The exif and the gwenview/dolphin database information are mutually exclusive. I think you realise that.
Yes, of course. I was miffed because I did not notice that gwenview was not writing to exif, but to the semantic area. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 30/01/2016 17:13, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
That's the point, I want the comments in exif area, inside the jpegs. Portable.
I very clearly rember a moment where the Kde explorer had an exif editor, but I don't use it, so... this discussion happen often here and elsewhere at a moment baloo was needed, I don't even kow how this is for Leap One can use Digikam that can write exifs, IPTC... jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-30 18:24, jdd wrote:
Le 30/01/2016 17:13, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
That's the point, I want the comments in exif area, inside the jpegs. Portable.
I very clearly rember a moment where the Kde explorer had an exif editor, but I don't use it, so... this discussion happen often here and elsewhere
Yes, I remember a few of them.
at a moment baloo was needed, I don't even kow how this is for Leap
One can use Digikam that can write exifs, IPTC...
But apparently it want's to "import" photographs, instead of just working with a directory. Ok, checking the tools I have in the context menu. Gimp: not a viewver, and just for editing comments is way too heavy and slow. Shotwell: a possibility, as I already use it for other things. But it has to import the photos first. As an advantage, it displays the comments below the photos in the overall display. XV: only displays a single photo. gthumb: suitable, writes comments to exif, easily allows to save some other data. Displays a single photo plus the rest of the directory in another panel. At this point, I notice a directory in the folder named ".comments", with a file named as the photo plus an ".xml" file that contains the test comment I just wrote in gthumb. Now I also notice that the comment in the Exif data is incomplete, trimmed short. The complete comment is in the xml file. I also notice in preferences that it says "store metadata inside files if possible". I guess it thinks my comment is too large. Thus gthumb is not suitable. ICC Examin: not suitable, it is not a viewer. Hugin PTT generator: not suitable, it is not a viewer. F-Spot: crashes. Okular: No edit. Showphoto: easy access to rotate, but saves one by one. No access to EXIF coments, or I don't see it. Crashes on some actions. Gwenview: best rotate functionality, but comments are not saved on exif. On the photo tools main menu: Panorama: crashes on start. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 2016-01-30 19:34, Carlos E. R. wrote:
gthumb: suitable, writes comments to exif, easily allows to save some other data. Displays a single photo plus the rest of the directory in another panel.
At this point, I notice a directory in the folder named ".comments", with a file named as the photo plus an ".xml" file that contains the test comment I just wrote in gthumb.
Now I also notice that the comment in the Exif data is incomplete, trimmed short. The complete comment is in the xml file. I also notice in preferences that it says "store metadata inside files if possible". I guess it thinks my comment is too large.
Thus gthumb is not suitable.
I see shotwell reads the gthumb written comment. Not the other way round. And shotwell also does not write the full comment to the jpg (size limit, I guess), but I don't know where it writes the full comment. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 30/01/2016 19:34, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
On 2016-01-30 18:24, jdd wrote:
One can use Digikam that can write exifs, IPTC...
But apparently it want's to "import" photographs, instead of just working with a directory.
not really. It have to build it's own database (usually sqlite), but uses kde folders. One can even change file names with Dolphin (or any script) and the names are changed also in digikam
guess it thinks my comment is too large.
Thus gthumb is not suitable.
there are several comment tags and sizes, may be some have a limited (by exif) size some years ago I wrote a small script to create an image with associated comment on it, for TV display http://dodin.info/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Photo.CEDA I looked at the comments at this moment Digikam is with no doubt the best tool to add comments and tags (and the associated showfoto very good for basic edit jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
may be this is the tool you searched: https://hvdwolf.github.io/pyExifToolGUI/ I couldn't make the linux version work, but the windows version works under wine (Leap) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/01/2016 21:24, jdd wrote:
Le 30/01/2016 19:34, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
On 2016-01-30 18:24, jdd wrote:
One can use Digikam that can write exifs, IPTC...
But apparently it want's to "import" photographs, instead of just working with a directory.
not really. It have to build it's own database (usually sqlite), but uses kde folders. One can even change file names with Dolphin (or any script) and the names are changed also in digikam
It does not copy photos to another place? It seems similar to shotwell, then. -- Saludos/Cheers, Carlos E.R. (Minas-Morgul - W10) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 31/01/2016 01:24, Carlos E.R. a écrit :
On 30/01/2016 21:24, jdd wrote:
Le 30/01/2016 19:34, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
On 2016-01-30 18:24, jdd wrote:
One can use Digikam that can write exifs, IPTC...
But apparently it want's to "import" photographs, instead of just working with a directory.
not really. It have to build it's own database (usually sqlite), but uses kde folders. One can even change file names with Dolphin (or any script) and the names are changed also in digikam
It does not copy photos to another place?
no, only picasa do that AFAIK jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 09:09, jdd wrote:
Le 31/01/2016 01:24, Carlos E.R. a écrit :
On 30/01/2016 21:24, jdd wrote:
Le 30/01/2016 19:34, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
On 2016-01-30 18:24, jdd wrote:
One can use Digikam that can write exifs, IPTC...
But apparently it want's to "import" photographs, instead of just working with a directory.
not really. It have to build it's own database (usually sqlite), but uses kde folders. One can even change file names with Dolphin (or any script) and the names are changed also in digikam
It does not copy photos to another place?
no, only picasa do that AFAIK
No, no, I do not mean to a web site. I mean that some copy the photos to their own directory tree. [...] Ok, I used "add a collection" to tell digikam where my photos are. While viewing some of them, the mouse and the keyboard froze. I had to ssh from another computer to kill digikam. I restarted it again, this time it does not get so bad, but it is taking a large time to display each directory. It is creating these two files in ~/Pictures/ -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 3323904 Jan 31 13:54 digikam4.db -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 25828352 Jan 31 14:03 thumbnails-digikam.db It does not read videos. Shotwell does. It appears to read the tags and comments created with shotwell, but I do not see how to create comments. But only if the photo is jpeg: not on the .nef/.jpg pairs made by my Nikon reflex camera. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 31/01/2016 15:05, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
no, only picasa do that AFAIK
No, no, I do not mean to a web site. I mean that some copy the photos to their own directory tree.
yes, picasa do copy
[...]
Ok, I used "add a collection" to tell digikam where my photos are. While viewing some of them, the mouse and the keyboard froze. I had to ssh from another computer to kill digikam.
I restarted it again, this time it does not get so bad, but it is taking a large time to display each directory. It is creating these two files in ~/Pictures/
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 3323904 Jan 31 13:54 digikam4.db -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 25828352 Jan 31 14:03 thumbnails-digikam.db
only thumbnails, not plain files
It does not read videos. Shotwell does.
it should (use the same kipi plugins - but video and photo are two different things, one can't edit videos as photos...
It appears to read the tags and comments created with shotwell, but I do not see how to create comments. But only if the photo is jpeg: not on the .nef/.jpg pairs made by my Nikon reflex camera.
don't kow for raw (I think it's a beta feature) but for exifs (or any metadata) it's easy (right column icons in digikam) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 06:11 AM, jdd wrote:
No, no, I do not mean to a web site. I mean that some copy the photos to their own directory tree.
yes, picasa do copy
Not on your local store it doesn’t. Only on your web copy. It documents all your edits to a side car file, and re-applies them to what you see, but if you open that file with any other viewer it is the original. Picasa warns you each time you are about to do something UN-recoverable https://support.google.com/picasa/answer/156347?hl=en -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 09:05 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
It appears to read the tags and comments created with shotwell, but I do not see how to create comments. But only if the photo is jpeg: not on the .nef/.jpg pairs made by my Nikon reflex camera.
Please see my comment on why comment/author/copyright information should be embedded as early as possible in those RAW file using exif and not rely on external sidecar files or external databases. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 15:14, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/31/2016 09:05 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
It appears to read the tags and comments created with shotwell, but I do not see how to create comments. But only if the photo is jpeg: not on the .nef/.jpg pairs made by my Nikon reflex camera.
Please see my comment on why comment/author/copyright information should be embedded as early as possible in those RAW file using exif and not rely on external sidecar files or external databases.
Both programs write exif tags and comments. The problem appears when each photo has 3 files: original.nef camera_generated.jpg shotwell_generated.jpg Ie, the camera generates both XXXX.nef and XXXX.jpg. When shotwell imports them, it generates another jpg file. I think the comments are saved to the jpg file, but I'm not sure. It can not write to the .nef file. Digikam does not see the comments or tags of these photos. I don't know yet why. It does see them if made on cameras that generate a single jpg file. Neither does digikam notice that those 3 files are a single photo. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
31. ledna 2016 22:21:14 CET, "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@telefonica.net> napsal:
On 2016-01-31 15:14, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/31/2016 09:05 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
It appears to read the tags and comments created with shotwell, but I do not see how to create comments. But only if the photo is jpeg: not on the .nef/.jpg pairs made by my Nikon reflex camera.
Please see my comment on why comment/author/copyright information should be embedded as early as possible in those RAW file using exif and not rely on external sidecar files or external databases.
Both programs write exif tags and comments. The problem appears when each photo has 3 files:
original.nef camera_generated.jpg shotwell_generated.jpg
Do You have specific reason for camera jpg? For me, it's wasting of space - I need camera RAW and exported JPG.
Ie, the camera generates both XXXX.nef and XXXX.jpg. When shotwell imports them, it generates another jpg file. I think the comments are saved to the jpg file, but I'm not sure. It can not write to the .nef file.
Digikam does not see the comments or tags of these photos. I don't know yet why. It does see them if made on cameras that generate a single jpg file.
Neither does digikam notice that those 3 files are a single photo.
I don't think there is way for any other SW to get know the pictures belong together. How could it know? -- Vojtěch Zeisek http://trapa.cz/cs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 23:19, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
original.nef camera_generated.jpg shotwell_generated.jpg
Do You have specific reason for camera jpg? For me, it's wasting of space - I need camera RAW and exported JPG.
For the moment, I'm not yet decided about it, but sometimes it seems the camera generated jpg is better quality than the one generated by shotwell (my camera, that is). Yes, it is some space waste. Or usage :-)
Ie, the camera generates both XXXX.nef and XXXX.jpg. When shotwell imports them, it generates another jpg file. I think the comments are saved to the jpg file, but I'm not sure. It can not write to the .nef file.
Digikam does not see the comments or tags of these photos. I don't know yet why. It does see them if made on cameras that generate a single jpg file.
Neither does digikam notice that those 3 files are a single photo.
I don't think there is way for any other SW to get know the pictures belong together. How could it know?
Shotwell does. It looks at the "root" of the name. And perhaps the jpg contains an exif field designating the name of the original, I don't know. But sometimes it gets confused, yes, with the jpg generated by the camera, not with the ones generated by shotwell. In such cases I move the one from the camera to another directory out of its sight. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Dne Po 1. února 2016 00:14:32, Carlos E. R. napsal(a):
On 2016-01-31 23:19, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
original.nef camera_generated.jpg shotwell_generated.jpg
Do You have specific reason for camera jpg? For me, it's wasting of space - I need camera RAW and exported JPG. For the moment, I'm not yet decided about it, but sometimes it seems the camera generated jpg is better quality than the one generated by shotwell (my camera, that is). Yes, it is some space waste. Or usage :-)
If so, You do something very wrong/weird when exporting JPG from RAW in the computer...
Ie, the camera generates both XXXX.nef and XXXX.jpg. When shotwell imports them, it generates another jpg file. I think the comments are saved to the jpg file, but I'm not sure. It can not write to the .nef file.
Digikam does not see the comments or tags of these photos. I don't know yet why. It does see them if made on cameras that generate a single jpg file.
Neither does digikam notice that those 3 files are a single photo.
I don't think there is way for any other SW to get know the pictures belong together. How could it know? Shotwell does. It looks at the "root" of the name. And perhaps the jpg contains an exif field designating the name of the original, I don't know.
Could be... I mean this is not universal - other SW won't understand what some other did...
But sometimes it gets confused, yes, with the jpg generated by the camera, not with the ones generated by shotwell. In such cases I move the one from the camera to another directory out of its sight.
I keep RAW in special subfolder within each album and I don't care about it that much... -- Vojtěch Zeisek Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/ https://trapa.cz/
On 2016-02-01 09:44, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Dne Po 1. února 2016 00:14:32, Carlos E. R. napsal(a):
Do You have specific reason for camera jpg? For me, it's wasting of space - I need camera RAW and exported JPG. For the moment, I'm not yet decided about it, but sometimes it seems the camera generated jpg is better quality than the one generated by shotwell (my camera, that is). Yes, it is some space waste. Or usage :-)
If so, You do something very wrong/weird when exporting JPG from RAW in the computer...
I do nothing. Shotwell generates automatically them the first time each photo is displayed. I have not seen configs to adjust the settings of this conversion, but it is obvious that shotwell uses different choices that my camera firmware uses.
I don't think there is way for any other SW to get know the pictures belong together. How could it know? Shotwell does. It looks at the "root" of the name. And perhaps the jpg contains an exif field designating the name of the original, I don't know.
Could be... I mean this is not universal - other SW won't understand what some other did...
That is indeed the problem :-( They should all meet somewhere and agree on standards. At least on Linux, with open sourced software, it should not be that huge of a problem.
But sometimes it gets confused, yes, with the jpg generated by the camera, not with the ones generated by shotwell. In such cases I move the one from the camera to another directory out of its sight.
I keep RAW in special subfolder within each album and I don't care about it that much...
Shotwell has to see the .NEF file, it is the key file for each photo. The others are derivatives. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/01/2016 08:04 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
If so, You do something very wrong/weird when exporting JPG from RAW in the computer...
I do nothing. Shotwell generates automatically them the first time each photo is displayed. I have not seen configs to adjust the settings of this conversion, but it is obvious that shotwell uses different choices that my camera firmware uses.
Indeed! And it sounds presumptive to me. At least your camera has setting as to what algorithm - "scene" setting - to use. I doubt shotwell is smart enough to say "Ah' a photo of a flower ..." <quote src="https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Shotwell/FAQ"> I just imported a RAW photo into Shotwell and it looks overexposed or underexposed, why is this and how can I fix it? Shotwell renders RAW images by picking some default tone mapping curves that work in most cases, but not all. If you shoot RAW+JPEG or even just plain RAW, your camera probably produces its own JPEG development of your RAW photo at exposure time, either as an associated JPEG file (in the RAW+JPEG case) or embedded in the RAW file itself (in the plain RAW) case. Since your camera presumably knows more about its CCD and the lighting conditions under which your photo was taken than Shotwell does, it’s development will likely look better than Shotwell’s. </quote> However http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/other-raw.html is misleading, inadequate and unfairly maligns other editors. I use KDE's Kongueror and it can view my RAW files. I use Darktable (which is actually gnomic in that it uses GTK rather than Qt) and it can display RAW files without the need to convert them to JPG. Importing RAW files into Darktable does *NOT* repeat *NOT* automatically create a JPG. Shotwell is wrong about this being necessary. When Darktable *does* generate a JPG or GIF it does it completely under your control, as a result of the edits you've made, using a name format you've chose, to a directory you've chosen. Its *YOU* that makes the decision, not the program. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 06:14 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Do You have specific reason for camera jpg? For me, it's wasting of space - I need camera RAW and exported JPG.
For the moment, I'm not yet decided about it, but sometimes it seems the camera generated jpg is better quality than the one generated by shotwell (my camera, that is). Yes, it is some space waste. Or usage :-)
If the camera JPG is better than the shotwell JPG I'd conclude one of two things. 1. Shotwell is an inferior photoeditor Not having used it and not being include to try, I don't know. I do know that the Windows based Adobe Photoshop has produced some very high quality results and that many people say that Darktable is as good in some areas. Of course that may be to do with the material it has to start with. 2. The skill of the user I *DO* know that using Darktable I've produced images that are of 'artistic' quality that my camera's algorithms could never have produced. My skill with Darktable is nothing to shout about, but it is improving as I experiment. of course, like Edison pointed out, you have to put up with a lot of failure learning this way, but so what? Everybody has to start somewhere. As I've said, there are 'professionals' (in that they are very skilled) who can work wonders with box cameras or cellphones. As far as I can see its about who is making the decisions. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 01/02/2016 16:07, Anton Aylward a écrit :
1. Shotwell is an inferior photoeditor
usually, the camera setup (what the camera do from raw to jpg) is recorded in the raw file. the dedicated tool (nikonraw...) know how to decode this. Shotwell or dcraw may not, this is privative data There are often times where one have to provide shots fast and for my example, I mostly never have time to fine tune a photo. last December 31, I took more than 1000 shots, kept 123 http://dodin.info/piwigo/index.php?/category/5964 and if it was only for me, I would have kept only around 20 :-) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2016 10:16 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 01/02/2016 16:07, Anton Aylward a écrit :
1. Shotwell is an inferior photoeditor
usually, the camera setup (what the camera do from raw to jpg) is recorded in the raw file.
Oh? Why do you say that? It is completely at variance with my understanding of what RAW is. Are you talking abut a JPG being embedded in a RAW file? I ask this because on my camera if I select RAW ONLY (as opposed to RAW+JPG) a) all the 'scene' settings are now disabled. That means the camera isn't converting raw to a JPG using a particular algorithm. it can't, no algorithm is selected b) there are/is no JPG embedded in the produced RAW files This makes sense to me. !f you have said "NO! and I mean !NO!" to JPG then its going to forget about JPG completely because it doesn't know ( sorry for the pun) what algorithm to use to convert RAW to JPG. Is this some peculiarity of your Nikon, that it *always* embeds some kind of JPG in the RAW, regardless of the other settings, even when it don't know what kind of JPG to produce? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Dne Po 1. února 2016 10:34:58, Anton Aylward napsal(a):
On 02/01/2016 10:16 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 01/02/2016 16:07, Anton Aylward a écrit :
1. Shotwell is an inferior photoeditor
usually, the camera setup (what the camera do from raw to jpg) is recorded in the raw file.
Oh? Why do you say that? It is completely at variance with my understanding of what RAW is. Are you talking abut a JPG being embedded in a RAW file?
I ask this because on my camera if I select RAW ONLY (as opposed to RAW+JPG)
a) all the 'scene' settings are now disabled. That means the camera isn't converting raw to a JPG using a particular algorithm. it can't, no algorithm is selected
b) there are/is no JPG embedded in the produced RAW files
This makes sense to me. !f you have said "NO! and I mean !NO!" to JPG then its going to forget about JPG completely because it doesn't know ( sorry for the pun) what algorithm to use to convert RAW to JPG.
I use Canon, middle class. When I open RAW (*.cr2) in digiKam (no import, just browsing the images), it says it's showing embedded JPG thumbnail. I don't know in which phase this is created. When I use import with custom settings, I of course get more or less different result. Otherwise just browsing hundreds of pictures from a trip would be painfully slow. RAX+JPG settings is different - in that case one can tell camera to create RAW as well as JPG with default/camera settings. -- Vojtěch Zeisek Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/ https://trapa.cz/
Le 01/02/2016 16:34, Anton Aylward a écrit :
Are you talking abut a JPG being embedded in a RAW file?
no
I ask this because on my camera if I select RAW ONLY (as opposed to RAW+JPG)
a) all the 'scene' settings are now disabled. That means the camera isn't converting raw to a JPG using a particular algorithm. it can't, no algorithm is selected
are you sure? I only own Canon cameras (now 5DMKIII), but I still can choose "green auto+" *and* RAW of course there is no jpg (may be a thumbnail, but this is unimportant), but the raw file have to hold all the camera settings, even if don't applying any. it have at least to display the images on the camera screen :-) after all, all the "scene" modes are only variations on the camera setup. and when the dedicated (Nikon or Canon) software open the file, it know all what the camera did and open this as default. Of course you can change all this at will http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/picturecontrol/ say (notice the "can be": "For changes and adjustments of Picture Controls after shooting. Flat option and clarity parameter can be applied to NEF (RAW) data shot with a Nikon digital SLR camera. " asI understand it, the raw file is *not* an image, the default camera setup included in it allows Nikon Capture http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/capturenxd/about/ to apply these settings as default, giving the same raw as the camera would have done, then of course tune it jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2016 11:24 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 01/02/2016 16:34, Anton Aylward a écrit :
Are you talking abut a JPG being embedded in a RAW file?
no
I ask this because on my camera if I select RAW ONLY (as opposed to RAW+JPG)
a) all the 'scene' settings are now disabled. That means the camera isn't converting raw to a JPG using a particular algorithm. it can't, no algorithm is selected
are you sure? I only own Canon cameras (now 5DMKIII), but I still can choose "green auto+" *and* RAW
Maybe I'm privileged but that's the way my Fuji works :-)
of course there is no jpg (may be a thumbnail, but this is unimportant), but the raw file have to hold all the camera settings, even if don't applying any. it have at least to display the images on the camera screen :-)
By "hold" you mean "record', and 'settings are the shutter, aperture, iso, flash, lens info. Some software can use this to, for example, apply lens correction for distortion or aberration to the RAW processing.
after all, all the "scene" modes are only variations on the camera setup.
I would not phrase it that way. I would phrase it as "They are variations in the algorithm the camera uses to processes the raw (not my use of lowercase here) data from the sensor to produce a jpg" Maybe its a good algorithm. it will certainly vary between vendors, even for the same "scene". my point is that it relying on someone elses smarts. This if fine if, as John points out, you're doing holiday snapshots. But why do that with a $1,000+ DSLR/lens combo when you can do JPG snapshots with a $100 P&S. What? Well there's a little discounted end of line Sony P&S that is a shirt-pocket size for CAN$99 going in the "Source" store (what used to be Tandy, what used to be Radio Shack) in my local mall. 20megapixels. http://www.thesource.ca/estore/Product.aspx?language=en-CA&catalog=Online&category=all-point-shoot-camera&product=8020032 or more mainstream http://www.thesource.ca/estore/product.aspx?language=en-CA&product=8012634&ref=flipp_hosted_119755 I'm a great believer in "shirt-pocket" cameras. As cellphone cameras have demonstrated, sometimes the convenience and availability of the camera outweighs other considerations. A few times I've caught evidential images for this reason. I'm not comparing this C$89 (that's US$63) with even a mid-range DSLR. I'm saying that it meets John's point about "holiday snapshots and sharing" for less than it would take the family to a buffet restaurant during that holiday. Holidays are expensive enough anyway! If you want to spend $200 or $400 on a Canon easy-carry, or even the G10/11/12, which I can recommend, for a little more, for your holiday snapshots, then fine. Or if you prefer something more traditional http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx1is/ But draw the line between snapshots and "serious" photography as John did.
asI understand it, the raw file is *not* an image, the default camera setup included in it allows Nikon Capture
I don't get your point here. Any digital file is "not an image". It's a digital file. So what? I'm not sure what you mean by "default camera set-up". The RAW file contains the *SPECIFIC" information about the image, the *SPECIFIC* camera settings, shutter, iso, aperture etc at the moment the photograph was taken. that pertains to the jpg too, but there are fields in a jpg that won't be in a RAW simply because it is 'post processed'. I realise that English isn't your first language, but I'm trying hard here to make sure that what I say is as unambigious as possible.
That and your earlier URL are more marketing than fact. The section "RAW Processing Explained" is a good basic outline about what raw processing is about. "Basic" and "outline" being the operatives there! The illustration is of a photo editor run on a PC. That it is of Nikon's own photo editor is beside the point. If you rely ONLY on what your camera is capable of doing then you are limiting yourself. Yes you can spend a lot, and by that I mean up around $5,000 or more, on a camera that can do about 20% of the editing that can be done in Photoshop or Darktable.
to apply these settings as default, giving the same raw as the camera would have done, then of course tune it
Again that's ambiguous. I don't see what point you're making. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 18:49, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 11:24 AM, jdd wrote:
This if fine if, as John points out, you're doing holiday snapshots. But why do that with a $1,000+ DSLR/lens combo when you can do JPG snapshots with a $100 P&S.
Because the optics and capabilities are better, for instance ;-) When doing "pleasure photos" I have the choice of taking my pocket Samsung or my D3200 Nikon (which is classified as entry level!). Depends if I want ease of movement or good optics (including a high resolution sensor). I may take a hundred photos, most of them just for remembrance, but then I may spot an eagle doing circles above me, and I know the pocket is not up to the task. Yesterday I lost a wonderful sunset. I had company and I could not find an advantage watching point. When I do "study" photos I may also take a hundred photos, many of them trials and checks to find out the best settings. Perhaps only one or two are worth it. I do not delete any! O:-) I tag the important ones instead. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/01/2016 03:43 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-01 18:49, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 11:24 AM, jdd wrote:
This if fine if, as John points out, you're doing holiday snapshots. But why do that with a $1,000+ DSLR/lens combo when you can do JPG snapshots with a $100 P&S.
Because the optics and capabilities are better, for instance ;-)
I think you would be surprised. I also think that this is a line that can easily degenerate into a pizzing match. It gets back to "adequate for the task" and a that gets back to "you'd be surprised at some of the optics of small cameras". Oh, and skill very often trumps technology!
When doing "pleasure photos" I have the choice of taking my pocket Samsung or my D3200 Nikon (which is classified as entry level!). Depends if I want ease of movement or good optics (including a high resolution sensor).
I differ. I agree with a couple of acquaintances who are professionals. A "carry camera" goes everywhere with you, except possible to bed and the shower. "G", One of the professionals I know, and industrial photographer, who has a Nikon system with about ... gee it must be well into half a million dollars if equipment based around 4 or five high end DSLRs and quality optics beyond your drams, has tow "carry cameras" that go everywhere with him, regardless. A CANON G10 and a CANON G11. When I asked him about upgrading my Sony he told me "forget that, get a G12, about $400 on eBay. Even s/h it's a better buy than anything you can afford from Sony". My other acquaintance who used to be "G's" apprentice is completely Canon, and he agreed with this. I also have an older, more modest canon which is one of my favourites from a handling POV. I'm tempted. There is absolutely no justification in any assertion that a "carry camera" that will fit in your pocket or even tour shirt pocket need have inferior optics or an inferior sensor. Smaller, yes: inferior no. And anyway, the software, the internal processor, issues like start-up and focus speed matter. If that 20M Sony for US$63 handled RAW I'd snap it up. On top of all that, a micro-four-thirds with a pancake lens from Olympus can match a Nikon or Canon or the high end Sony that cost ten times the price. And it too is a pocket sized camera. I borrowed one for a trip a couple of years back and was reluctant to return it.
I may take a hundred photos, most of them just for remembrance, but then I may spot an eagle doing circles above me, and I know the pocket is not up to the task.
So? That in no way invalidates any of what I've said above.
Yesterday I lost a wonderful sunset. I had company and I could not find an advantage watching point.
That's a completely different issue. I could get some great sunsets if it wasn't for the tall buildings around. Oh, right, I could go to the top of one. Only they are restricted access ... even tenants can't go on the roof. That's another way of saying "I could not find an advantage watching point". -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 22:35, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 03:43 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-01 18:49, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 11:24 AM, jdd wrote:
This if fine if, as John points out, you're doing holiday snapshots. But why do that with a $1,000+ DSLR/lens combo when you can do JPG snapshots with a $100 P&S.
Because the optics and capabilities are better, for instance ;-)
I think you would be surprised. I also think that this is a line that can easily degenerate into a pizzing match. It gets back to "adequate for the task" and a that gets back to "you'd be surprised at some of the optics of small cameras".
But you see, the example small camera you cite later, at about 400$, are at the price range of my SLR. My pocket camera is under 100€. I can't afford to buy another, not now. I know, for instance, that the compact cameras I have used distort. It is very noticeable when shooting rooms, the lines in the walls are bent. About Canon: I'm biased against it. Canon printers are badly supported by Linux, and I don't expect cameras to be different. The brand is very closed.
I may take a hundred photos, most of them just for remembrance, but then I may spot an eagle doing circles above me, and I know the pocket is not up to the task.
So? That in no way invalidates any of what I've said above.
My 100€ pocket camera is not up to the task. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/01/2016 05:51 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
But you see, the example small camera you cite later, at about 400$, are at the price range of my SLR. My pocket camera is under 100€. I can't afford to buy another, not now.
I'm not asking you to, especially with the way the economy and the currencies are right now. The example I was giving were to make the point.
I know, for instance, that the compact cameras I have used distort. It is very noticeable when shooting rooms, the lines in the walls are bent.
John Anderson said <quote> I don't know. There is a lot of FUD running around loose in the world that drapes itself in the mantle of wisdom, which is, at best, based on one influential guy's unfortunate experience with ancient software. If you took the same advice about computers we'd all be using abacuses. </quote> It goes for hardware as well. There are many products that have failures associated with them. As for distortion, ALL LENSES DISTORT! Some more noticeably than others. Some do it with shape, some with colour. The whole point of digital photography is that this can be corrected with software. I don't know if vendor software does it; I don't run Windows. I *DO* know that there is/are database(es) of lens characterises. Programs like Adobe's Photoshop and even Darktable can access them and make use of them to do correction.. Or not of yo don't want to. Some people WANT the distortion. Think of wide angle lenses, panoramic shots, fish-eye lenses.
About Canon: I'm biased against it. Canon printers are badly supported by Linux, and I don't expect cameras to be different. The brand is very closed.
Contrariwise, while they aren't very innovative, compared to Fuji, Sony or even Nikon in the DSLR arena, some of the smaller cameras such as the G10/11/12 are brilliant. And they make DAMN GOOD LENSES! If you go for some of the smaller mirrorless cameras, the Olympus, Panasonic, the Four-thirds and Micro-four-thirds, then the community rants and raves over Canon glass going on eBay or other sales that they can use with adapter rings, even though this means giving up the automatic functions, because the glass is so exemplary. I looked at buying one of those micros after borrowing that Oly a few years ago and hung out in the forums/lists for a while. In that way, all the brands are 'closed', but so what? It's not as if there is "Open source" replacement for the s/w for any of the cameras or lenses as there is for Android cell phones. We're spoilt coming from a Linux background, its distorted out outlook. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-02 00:39, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 05:51 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
As for distortion, ALL LENSES DISTORT! Some more noticeably than others. Some do it with shape, some with colour.
The whole point of digital photography is that this can be corrected with software. I don't know if vendor software does it; I don't run Windows. I *DO* know that there is/are database(es) of lens characterises. Programs like Adobe's Photoshop and even Darktable can access them and make use of them to do correction..
I think it is darktable, it doesn't have entries for my lenses.
About Canon: I'm biased against it. Canon printers are badly supported by Linux, and I don't expect cameras to be different. The brand is very closed.
Contrariwise, while they aren't very innovative, compared to Fuji, Sony or even Nikon in the DSLR arena, some of the smaller cameras such as the G10/11/12 are brilliant.
And they make DAMN GOOD LENSES!
Yes. I agree with that. But they are not friendly to Linux.
If you go for some of the smaller mirrorless cameras, the Olympus, Panasonic, the Four-thirds and Micro-four-thirds, then the community rants and raves over Canon glass going on eBay or other sales that they can use with adapter rings, even though this means giving up the automatic functions, because the glass is so exemplary.
I looked at buying one of those micros after borrowing that Oly a few years ago and hung out in the forums/lists for a while. In that way, all the brands are 'closed', but so what? It's not as if there is "Open source" replacement for the s/w for any of the cameras or lenses as there is for Android cell phones. We're spoilt coming from a Linux background, its distorted out outlook.
Yes, as I said, I'm biased ;-) I do not want to buy Canon if I can avoid it. And Nikon is an old camera manufacturer. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/11/2016 07:43 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I do not want to buy Canon if I can avoid it. And Nikon is an old camera manufacturer.
Compared to another "old" camera manufacturer, it isn't quite as innovative as far as digital technology goes. And FujiFilm, Panasonic, Olympus were all ahead as far as innovating with 4/3rd and micro-4/3rd mirrorless go. In fact if I had to rate the "old" manufacturers I'd put Sony way ahead of Canon and Nikon for a variety of reasons. Lets face it, with digital photographic technology the whole SLR model, the pentaprism, is meaningless. Yes, even the SLR manufacturers have got rid of the bulk and weight of the pentaprism and gone with digital eyepieces. But even Nikon and Canon professional models admit that is all beside the point. Many professional I know stick their camera on tripod and manipulate it via a wired connection from their laptop, view the image there, remote control the camera there. late models even do this over wifi. Stop thinking of it as a camera, its not and it hasn't been for a long while. Its a computer with a lens on it. The cellphone has made that quite clear. If the lensfun package doesn't have a table for you particular lens, then there's a procedure for updating their database http://lensfun.sourceforge.net/calibration/ -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Op donderdag 11 februari 2016 08:04:51 CET schreef Anton Aylward:
On 02/11/2016 07:43 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I do not want to buy Canon if I can avoid it. And Nikon is an old camera manufacturer.
Compared to another "old" camera manufacturer, it isn't quite as innovative as far as digital technology goes.
And FujiFilm, Panasonic, Olympus were all ahead as far as innovating with 4/3rd and micro-4/3rd mirrorless go.
In fact if I had to rate the "old" manufacturers I'd put Sony way ahead of Canon and Nikon for a variety of reasons.
Sony is not an "old" manufacturer, they bought Minolta.
Lets face it, with digital photographic technology the whole SLR model, the pentaprism, is meaningless. Yes, even the SLR manufacturers have got rid of the bulk and weight of the pentaprism and gone with digital eyepieces. But even Nikon and Canon professional models admit that is all beside the point. Many professional I know stick their camera on tripod and manipulate it via a wired connection from their laptop, view the image there, remote control the camera there. late models even do this over wifi.
Stop thinking of it as a camera, its not and it hasn't been for a long while. Its a computer with a lens on it. The cellphone has made that quite clear.
I think photography is on it's way to what you're describing here, but not there yet. I too know professional photographers and they don't all agree to this. Personally, for day to day shapshots it's either smartphone or our NIKON D5100, but for B&W ( portraits ) I still prefer the old analogue Mamiya Z1.
If the lensfun package doesn't have a table for you particular lens, then there's a procedure for updating their database http://lensfun.sourceforge.net/calibration/
> Q: Are you sure? > >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >> >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
-- Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board Member openSUSE Forums Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
In 02/11/2016 09:09 AM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Sony is not an "old" manufacturer, they bought Minolta.
Yes they did, but they were a camera manufactures long before they did that in 2006. For example, as a pioneer in the digital photography world, in 1997 Sony marketed the MVC-FD5 and MVC-FD7, the first ever digital cameras using a standard floppy disc as the storage. Actually the Sony camera division goes back further. They sold a CCD video camera back in 1981. That year also saw a still version called the Mavica. really it was the same technology just packed in what looked like a camera body with interchangeable lenses. Yes it took still images digitally, 570 x 490 pixels on a 10mm x 12mm chip. If TV vidcon counts as "camera" then Sony was selling these in the usa back in 1974. Actually their video cameras go back even further. The Sony CVC-2000 dating from 1965 was the first domestic video camera. http://www.smecc.org/sony_cv_series_video.htm http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Sony_Mavica_%281981%29 http://www.labguysworld.com/Sony_AVC-3250.htm -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 01/02/2016 23:51, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
About Canon: I'm biased against it. Canon printers are badly supported by Linux, and I don't expect cameras to be different. The brand is very closed.
no more true and I always work with canon (photo cameras dsl an video, compacts cams are an other story)
My 100€ pocket camera is not up to the task.
most 100€ pocket cams are not better than low cost smartphone... jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
* jdd <jdd@dodin.org> [02-02-16 04:32]: [...]
and I always work with canon (photo cameras dsl an video, compacts cams are an other story)
But this fact has little bearing aside from brand loyalty and/or lense lock in as your lense colletion usually is somewhat static as manufacturers increase their "brand loyalty" by assuring their lenses work only on "their" cameras (for the most part). Over the years I have accumulated 8 or 10 "nikon" lenses so being quite less than wealthy, I *use* nikon cameras ... -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-02 14:49, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* jdd <jdd@dodin.org> [02-02-16 04:32]: [...]
and I always work with canon (photo cameras dsl an video, compacts cams are an other story)
But this fact has little bearing aside from brand loyalty and/or lense lock in as your lense colletion usually is somewhat static as manufacturers increase their "brand loyalty" by assuring their lenses work only on "their" cameras (for the most part). Over the years I have accumulated 8 or 10 "nikon" lenses so being quite less than wealthy, I *use* nikon cameras ...
I know that brands try to lock you in to their hardware, but I'm afraid of buying a camera that my Linux system will not even read without proprietary drivers. Using exfat, for instance, would be a problem in this context. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 11/02/2016 13:45, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
I know that brands try to lock you in to their hardware, but I'm afraid of buying a camera that my Linux system will not even read without proprietary drivers.
Using exfat, for instance, would be a problem in this context.
opensuse read exfat, not by default, but drivers are available and by the way I do all my photo work with digikam / Gimp, never had problem with Canon camera. by the way if I kept Canon for the last camera was chance, because I went from APS-C to full format and so had to change most of my hardware, but I couldn't buy the D800 I wanted from Amazon because my Visa card couldn't be charged the 3000€ wanted. At the same moment, I found a "Kit" for a Canon 5DMKIII + 24-105 at a local store and could buy it. so finally I couldn't have a Nikon :-) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/02/2016 04:31 AM, jdd wrote:
most 100€ pocket cams are not better than low cost smartphone...
I hate generalizations like that! Recall John said <quote> I don't know. There is a lot of FUD running around loose in the world that drapes itself in the mantle of wisdom, which is, at best, based on one influential guy's unfortunate experience with ancient software. </quote> The same applies to cameras and smartphones. "Yes it used to be but we changed all that". I gave the example of the 20M Sony for US$63. There are a LOT of cameras at the $100/100Euro mark, around 16M, that have better lenses and sensors than phones even at the $500-$700 range. And that being said, there are some excellent site demonstrating the capability of the cellphone camera. Go google. One example of what phones can do is at Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickr/galleries/72157644100931123/ JDD makes a case for the use of high-end equipment for a specific and extreme situations. I do understand his use case. In my mid teens I was asked to photograph the class production of "Our Town" simply because I was one of the two people in the upper school who had a camera. That was with my first Canon. Its not like studio or Industrial where you can set up the lighting, the reflectors, pose the models. But not everyone is operating under his constraints, not everyone is shooting in a studio under controlled conditions, not everyone is making a living from photography and being able to justify high end equipment on a business basis. That doesn't mean, for those of us that this is a 'hobby', that we don't apply ourselves, have a critical eye, do the feedback and improvement thing. http://petapixel.com/2014/05/06/15-easy-ways-improve-photo-skills-without-bu... The advice to 'study the masters' is something to take seriously. I recall when I first came across a book of Ansel Adam's landscapes. I was in tears. Colour is too easy! After that I spend 5 years working solely in B&W, trying all manner of exposure tests and experiment, light, shadow, angles. Sometimes I look at a scene and see it in 'noir' or perhaps in monotones. Technology shouldn't be a crutch. At http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/shootout-redux-smartphone-camera-vs-t... I hardly think it's fair to compare a Canon 5DIII + post processing in DxO with an iPhone. Cost vs effort. As he says, digital zoom degrades heavily. And: <quote> Ultimately, the winner here is the smartphone, not the DSLR. The DSLR triumphs technically, and it will produce better images under almost any circumstance, but it’s just hella hard to stack it against the iPhone’s portability and "good enough"-ness. Is the smartphone better? No. The DSLR and its lenses, even in my unskilled hands, produce higher-quality images, period. They’re higher resolution, and they contain more detail. It’s impossible for the iPhone’s little 8.5mm-ish sensor to grab as many photons as the DSLR’s big 35mm full-frame sensor. The DSLR wins every time, and the iPhone’s output, while good, isn’t as good. But that’s the thing: the smartphone may not produce the same massive, high-detail 22MP images as the full-frame DSLR, but the smartphone does manage to be good enough. Under most lighting conditions indoor or outdoor, the iPhone produced images that were perfectly acceptable—more than good enough to post on Facebook or e-mail to friends and family. If you're taking photos for print publication, a DSLR is the way to go; for personal use, a smartphone is perfectly fine. Even if cost is no object and dropping $9,000 on a DSLR and a bunch of lenses doesn’t faze you, the smartphone is still good enough for just about anything. </quote> Yes, smartphones have a lot of compromises: small sensors, thin bodies necessitate small lenses. Physics dictates all this. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 02/02/2016 15:21, Anton Aylward a écrit :
On 02/02/2016 04:31 AM, jdd wrote:
most 100€ pocket cams are not better than low cost smartphone...
I hate generalizations like that!
Yes, smartphones have a lot of compromises: small sensors, thin bodies necessitate small lenses. Physics dictates all this.
but we all have one with us... jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/02/2016 10:06 AM, jdd wrote:
Yes, smartphones have a lot of compromises: small sensors, thin bodies necessitate small lenses. Physics dictates all this.
but we all have one with us...
And as is said "The best camera is the one you have with you". Back to the "shirt pocket P&S". (Only I don't keep my smartphone in my shirt pocket as it falls out when I bend over to tie my bootlaces....)(Thinks: roll on summer when I can wear loafers...) -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/02/2016 07:18 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/02/2016 10:06 AM, jdd wrote:
Yes, smartphones have a lot of compromises: small sensors, thin bodies necessitate small lenses. Physics dictates all this.
but we all have one with us...
And as is said "The best camera is the one you have with you".
And an amazing thing happened when everybody started carrying cameras ALL. THE. TIME. Bigfoot, Sasquatch,and the Abominable Snowman all disappeared at once from the face of the earth. -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-02 15:21, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/02/2016 04:31 AM, jdd wrote:
I gave the example of the 20M Sony for US$63. There are a LOT of cameras at the $100/100Euro mark, around 16M, that have better lenses and sensors than phones even at the $500-$700 range.
I'm sure of it. In the question of lenses and sensors, size does matter :-)
JDD makes a case for the use of high-end equipment for a specific and extreme situations. I do understand his use case. In my mid teens I was asked to photograph the class production of "Our Town" simply because I was one of the two people in the upper school who had a camera.
LOL. About the same here, but what I had an instamatic 126 from Kodak, I think. Just two settings, sun or shadow. The flash came in cartridges of four: glass capsules with a magnesium filament (guess) with a mechanical ignition, something similar to how bullets are fired (guess on my part). So I did very few photos with flash, not enough money to buy enough of those things. I should have it somewhere, unless it was stolen. My parents gave it to me after my previous camera failed. It was an SLR I built myself from a kit from Kosmos. Picture here: http://www.todocoleccion.net/juegos-educativos/antiguo-raro-dificil-juego-ko... http://www.todocoleccion.net/juegos-educativos/juego-mesa-kosmos-optikus-opt... The brand still exists, but they don't make those learning kits anymore. Just trivial kits. Pity. The problem it had was that the film movement mechanism was defective, by design, according to a professional photographer friend of my father. Apart from that fiasco, it was an stupendous /toy/ for learning optics and photography. But I needed another camera, now that I was introduced to them... :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/02/2016 10:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-02 15:21, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/02/2016 04:31 AM, jdd wrote:
I gave the example of the 20M Sony for US$63. There are a LOT of cameras at the $100/100Euro mark, around 16M, that have better lenses and sensors than phones even at the $500-$700 range.
I'm sure of it. In the question of lenses and sensors, size does matter :-)
yes, but .... its getting increasing irrelevant as engineers "cheat" physics. I have excellent last century Canon lenses, but they are HEAVY! In my teens I wore "bottle bottom" glasses. Thick, heave and strong. technology has advanced; my current glasses are 30% stronger, wafer thin, light and unbreakable, scratch-free plastic! Optical material technology has moved on. And now we have computers and computational optical systems. Those old Canon lenses had many components to try and correct aberrations of all forms. More elements made them heavier. Now we don't care on two fronts: firstly plastic lenses mean that more element aren't heavy. Today's equivalent lenses are a fraction the weight. We can also do better optical design with better computer modelling. But ultimately we don't care because the software can accommodate a whole raft of lens aberrations. And it does. Finally we can escape from the idea that the image plane the sensor, the "film" has to be flat. Or even in a single place. We've long had radar and radio telescopes that build up the 'aperture' by having a thinly dispersed set of sensors over a large area, gaps in between. we're learning to do that with optical wavelengths as well. Its a computational issue. We don't need lenses that focus, in fact there are cameras that don't have lenses. Its a computational issue. We've been doing RAID for storage, we're doing parallel computing. I'm sure that someone will do a 'distributed array of photo-sensors' as a camera, perhaps cover the back of a cell phone with the little sensors that many have, or take them from a few dozen webcams (or perhaps set up a few dozen webcams as the demo), and computationally treat them as a single sensor. It becomes a computational issue. Sounds like a good doctoral subject, eh? And once that's done you can bet a Japanese or Chinese vendor will make it into a commercial offering. A cellphone with a 3" sensor ... and no lens. Forget aperture, forget focusing. Its a computational issue. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-02 17:43, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/02/2016 10:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I'm sure of it. In the question of lenses and sensors, size does matter :-)
yes, but .... its getting increasing irrelevant as engineers "cheat" physics.
...
But ultimately we don't care because the software can accommodate a whole raft of lens aberrations. And it does.
Yes, true, but that is "cheating", so to speak. The truth is, it is always easier to make a big lens than a small one (but not huge lenses that would be used on astronomy). If you have the same, top notch, technology, the same manufacturing error has more effect on the photo the smaller the lens is. Yes, you can correct for aberrations with software, but realistically, only for the defects common for the entire tirade of a set of optics; not for the defects particular to your unit. Unless there is a simple way to create those corrections yourself for a single camera.
Finally we can escape from the idea that the image plane the sensor, the "film" has to be flat. Or even in a single place. We've long had radar and radio telescopes that build up the 'aperture' by having a thinly dispersed set of sensors over a large area, gaps in between. we're learning to do that with optical wavelengths as well. Its a computational issue. We don't need lenses that focus, in fact there are cameras that don't have lenses. Its a computational issue.
Mmmm... -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/11/2016 07:52 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Yes, you can correct for aberrations with software, but realistically, only for the defects common for the entire tirade of a set of optics; not for the defects particular to your unit. Unless there is a simple way to create those corrections yourself for a single camera.
Disagree. Well I agree only so far as if you want a standardized package at lensfun for that model lens, but there's no reason you have to use the "as shipped" package any more than you do with a Linux distribution of a house. Back in the cold war era the NSA used to ask for the junky little camera, the equivalent of the little ones that I used to see on the tables at wedding, a sealed unit with 24 shots of 35mm film in a plastic box with a plastic lens, that came from spies. The asked for the complete camera, film unexposed. Using NASA technology the enhanced the image even before the film was developed. Using lasers they examines how 'flat' and how aligned the film was, the optical characteristics of the lens. This on a case-by-case basis. They did this with computers that weren't as powerful as what I have here on my desk today. The real issue was how they examined the equipment. There's no reason we need to have a flat image plane. The human eye doesn't! In fact most biological systems have 'eyes' where the image surface is quite irregular. Its the processing that counts. So its not just your individual lens, its your individual lens=camera. There's no guarantee your image plane is perfectly perpendicular to the light path, for a variety of reasons from manufacturing though to the lens coupling. It gets to reductio ad absurdum. But the lensfun model is FOSS. You can analyse your own lens+camera model and put that in your own library. If you care that much. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 11/02/2016 13:52, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
Yes, you can correct for aberrations with software, but realistically, only for the defects common for the entire tirade of a set of optics; not for the defects particular to your unit. Unless there is a simple way to create those corrections yourself for a single camera.
some cameras have this individual setup, others do this automatically right now, data processing is not yet really gone into our optics. But this will probably be a next step, electronics inside the lens, set up for this particular lens. I'm not in the mind of camera designers, and sepially Sony cameras are still back because the electronic viewfinder is not yet really as good as the optical one, I'm pretty sure Canon or Nikon are able of making good electronic when it become necessary. Right now Sony is really impressive in the compact camera market. My Sony RX100MKII, one year old have a size to result ration unbelievable... but this will soon have drawbacks: did you notice the image you get is *not* as large as the image you have on screen? including in the inside conversion, rw to jpg lens correction eats part of the image. Specially visible for short focals jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 17:24, jdd wrote:
of course there is no jpg (may be a thumbnail, but this is unimportant), but the raw file have to hold all the camera settings, even if don't applying any. it have at least to display the images on the camera screen :-)
Yes, the dedicated Nikon software (WIndows only) knows the exact choices made on the camera at shooting time. The information is stored in the raw file somehow. After all, each brand uses their own format. Thus that software can replicate what the camera did and alter the settings to generate a different jpeg. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/01/2016 03:35 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-01 17:24, jdd wrote:
of course there is no jpg (may be a thumbnail, but this is unimportant), but the raw file have to hold all the camera settings, even if don't applying any. it have at least to display the images on the camera screen :-)
Yes, the dedicated Nikon software (WIndows only) knows the exact choices made on the camera at shooting time. The information is stored in the raw file somehow. After all, each brand uses their own format.
Yes and no. if you run exif you will find that the setting of the camera "at shooting time" are accessible. How else would shotwell, darktable and photoshop be able to read them? Yes the image format, the "dump" of the sensor, is formatted differently for each vendor (though there are proposals about that) but so what? Photoshop, shotwaell and darktable all read that. They have to since they can edit the image and produce jpgs, tiffs and gifs. Yes, the vendor's software can read the information, just like photoshop, shotwell and darktable, and produce different gifs. In many cases the "somehow" if documented extremely well. As a test, you should try running exif on your RAW files and get to see what those supposedly "hidden" settings are and how easily found they are. You might be surprised. You might try -l, --list-tags List all known EXIF tags and IFDs. A JPEG image must be provided, and those tags which appear in the file are shown with an asterisk in the corresponding position in the list. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 22:47, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 03:35 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-01 17:24, jdd wrote:
of course there is no jpg (may be a thumbnail, but this is unimportant), but the raw file have to hold all the camera settings, even if don't applying any. it have at least to display the images on the camera screen :-)
Yes, the dedicated Nikon software (WIndows only) knows the exact choices made on the camera at shooting time. The information is stored in the raw file somehow. After all, each brand uses their own format.
Yes and no. if you run exif you will find that the setting of the camera "at shooting time" are accessible. How else would shotwell, darktable and photoshop be able to read them?
Well, I mean that the camera manufacturer can decide to add new fields at "build time", change whatever they choose, and support all that in the supplied software. These new changes will not be supported by open source software, till they catch up.
As a test, you should try running exif on your RAW files and get to see what those supposedly "hidden" settings are and how easily found they are. You might be surprised.
I have, but that was not my meaning. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 01/31/2016 05:19 PM, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
Do You have specific reason for camera jpg? For me, it's wasting of space - I need camera RAW and exported JPG.
Well, there is that too :-) Computer disk space is cheaper than fast camera memory card space. And the computer has better tools for converting RAW to JPG. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 31/01/2016 22:21, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
Neither does digikam notice that those 3 files are a single photo.
there is a special setup in digikam to manage versioning, it may be related (or not). In case, the digikam mailing list is very reactive jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 04:21 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-01-31 15:14, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/31/2016 09:05 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
It appears to read the tags and comments created with shotwell, but I do not see how to create comments. But only if the photo is jpeg: not on the .nef/.jpg pairs made by my Nikon reflex camera.
Please see my comment on why comment/author/copyright information should be embedded as early as possible in those RAW file using exif and not rely on external sidecar files or external databases.
Both programs write exif tags and comments. The problem appears when each photo has 3 files:
original.nef camera_generated.jpg shotwell_generated.jpg
Ie, the camera generates both XXXX.nef and XXXX.jpg.
Well its not really 3, but I see your problem. You don't have a single unambiguous "original'. *YOU* have chose to set your Nikon to generate "RAW+JPG". The point is that the JPG it generates can be any one of the 'scene" and manipulation options your Nikon has. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/exploring-scene-modes-with-a-nikon-d51... http://dpanswers.com/content/nikon_psm.php https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/538/~/what-are-the-diff... You may not have chosen the one best suited to the image you want to present. Even if it is the one that the name of matches the scene. That JPG is what the camera's internal algorithms generate from the TAW data at the sensor. I read reviews of cameras I think about upgrading to at DPReview, for example, and see in their detailed reviews many critical analysis of the RAW-to-JPG conversion in the camera. This motivates me not to use the "RAW+JPG" and simply to do the conversion to JPG using Darktable from the single unambitious original RAW file. Its about quality. I should point out that darktable also lets me do manipulations that are way beyond what the camera can do, making, shading, spot elimination, applying various correction filters, a wider range of "scene" settings, playing with grey-scale, overlay, and of course it can also produce TIFF and other 16-bit formats that are less lossy than JPG or GIF. So my list of files ends up as original camera generated RAW to which I apply the copyright darktable generated sidebar file any number of JPG files generated by darktable any number of tiff files generated by darktable any number of JPG-2000 files generated by darktable and so on.
When shotwell imports them, it generates another jpg file.
Are you saying that it automatically generates them on import? I don't like that. But such is your choice. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38793513
I think the comments are saved to the jpg file, but I'm not sure. It can not write to the .nef file.
A photoeditor should NEVER alter the original. My point about adding copyright to the RAW is that I'm paranoid about getting in there before any derivatives can be made. If my camera allowed me to insert the author/copyright information "at source" then I would use that. It doesn't, so I edit the RAW files with exiftools. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT LAST SENTENCE.
Digikam does not see the comments or tags of these photos. I don't know yet why. It does see them if made on cameras that generate a single jpg file.
There are many cameras, not least of the camera capabilities of cellphones, that ONLY generate GIFs or JPGs. I'm not saying that a cellphone can't produce a great photographs; put one in the hands of a professional and he or she will produce consistent quality just as easily as of were a high end DSLR or a 1950s Kodak box camera. Ultimately skill and creativity will trump technology. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Neither does digikam notice that those 3 files are a single photo.
Of course not, its not a semantic scene analyser, some form of AI. its only a photo editor. if I adopted it after generating 50 to 60 variations on one RAW file, apply various 'scene' pre-sets, using darktable, it wouldn't recognise those either. The only reason darktable "does" is that it has its own database and history. So we're back to something 'external'. It is *YOU* who have chose to set the camera to produce "RAW+JPG" and it is *YOU* who selected the scene setting from which the camera's internal algorithms produced that JPG from the RAW. If you don't like that then why are you also producing the RAW, uploading it and using an image editor on it? Why not use just RAW and then "Hmm, that's a flower, OK apply pre-set flower and see what I get. Hmm, don't like that, go back to the raw and mask out the foreground and apply "bokeh" filter to the background. Better. Now lets play with the colour curve of those petals." BTDT. A street near me has, fashionable, what looks like old gaslights even though they are actually electric. A RAW of that taken in brilliant sunlight on a cloudless day, make B&W in darktable, ad back spots of colour, highlight grain using solarization to give the effect of rain and most, , a wonderful "noir" Victorian street at dusk. Sorry, there's no camera "scene" setting to do that. This is art. The camera is a tool. While I'm happy to let it do the focusing and for me and get the exposure close to what I want, that's mechanics. "Render unto the computer" and all that as Norbert Weiner said. If I were dong this 40 years ago in the darkroom I had set up in the basement, with the enlarger, baths of chemicals, different types of paper, filters, pieces of cotton, mesh and wire and more, the database would be my notebook. Like they say, YMMV. So be asking yourself: Why are you using a photeditor at all if you are taking the camera's idea of what the editing of the RAW to JPG should be? And if shotwell automatically generates a JPG on loading, then what algorithm is being used there? And is that a setting you can turn off? I can tolerate 'automation' making low level decisions for me, when to turn the furnace on for the heating as the temperature falls, things like that. But making strategic, creative decisions, that's another matter. I very much doubt that shotwell could do recognise "ah a single close-up of a plant..." and apply the example reasoning, evaluation, masking and choice of enhancement that I gave in the above example. So why have it automatically generate a JPG you don't want? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/02/16 14:54, Anton Aylward wrote:
It is *YOU* who have chose to set the camera to produce "RAW+JPG" and it is *YOU* who selected the scene setting from which the camera's internal algorithms produced that JPG from the RAW.
I pretty much agree with everything you say here, Anton. But I think there is a use (for me) for shooting with RAW+JPG. When I'm on holiday, most of what I shoot is snapshots, with occasionally some 'art' shots in there as well. I often get asked by friends if they can have a copy of one of the snapshots, or I might want to upload it there and then to social media. So, on holiday, I use RAW+JPG, when trying to be creative, always just RAW. Bob -- Bob Williams System: Linux 4.1.15-8-default Distro: openSUSE 42.1 (x86_64) with KDE Development Platform: 4.14.16
On 02/01/2016 10:32 AM, Bob Williams wrote:
On 01/02/16 14:54, Anton Aylward wrote:
It is *YOU* who have chose to set the camera to produce "RAW+JPG" and it is *YOU* who selected the scene setting from which the camera's internal algorithms produced that JPG from the RAW.
I pretty much agree with everything you say here, Anton. But I think there is a use (for me) for shooting with RAW+JPG.
When I'm on holiday, most of what I shoot is snapshots, with occasionally some 'art' shots in there as well. I often get asked by friends if they can have a copy of one of the snapshots, or I might want to upload it there and then to social media. So, on holiday, I use RAW+JPG, when trying to be creative, always just RAW.
That makes perfect sense to me, Bob. You have a clear and reasoned justification for that decision, you're not just another "happy point and shoot" guy. You've clearly established a boundary here. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 15:54, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/31/2016 04:21 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Both programs write exif tags and comments. The problem appears when each photo has 3 files:
original.nef camera_generated.jpg shotwell_generated.jpg
Ie, the camera generates both XXXX.nef and XXXX.jpg.
Well its not really 3, but I see your problem. You don't have a single unambiguous "original'.
*YOU* have chose to set your Nikon to generate "RAW+JPG".
That's my setting. The camera generates both a .nef and a .jpg (good). The other choices are raw only, or jpeg only (good, medium, or simple). So two from the camera, and a third file, a jpeg, generated by shotwell (using names such as DSC_XXXX_NEF_shotwell.jpg) I see the point in using RAW only or RAW+JPG, but not in using the JPG setting alone - maybe on emergencies, hundreds of shots to do and no space in the card, no spare cards.
The point is that the JPG it generates can be any one of the 'scene" and manipulation options your Nikon has.
Right. The camera has less processing power, but knows best the hardware and the camera settings for the scene.
I read reviews of cameras I think about upgrading to at DPReview, for example, and see in their detailed reviews many critical analysis of the RAW-to-JPG conversion in the camera.
This motivates me not to use the "RAW+JPG" and simply to do the conversion to JPG using Darktable from the single unambitious original RAW file. Its about quality.
Well, you can simply not use the JPG the camera generates, or move to another directory, and then generate your own, of course.
I should point out that darktable also lets me do manipulations that are way beyond what the camera can do, making, shading, spot elimination, applying various correction filters, a wider range of "scene" settings, playing with grey-scale, overlay, and of course it can also produce TIFF and other 16-bit formats that are less lossy than JPG or GIF.
So my list of files ends up as
original camera generated RAW to which I apply the copyright darktable generated sidebar file any number of JPG files generated by darktable any number of tiff files generated by darktable any number of JPG-2000 files generated by darktable
and so on.
Yes, I understand that. I have tried to use darktable, but I couldn't do much with it. Much too learning to make. Many of my photos are night shots without flash: buildings or objects outside illuminated by the moon or a very small torch (same one I use to get to the place in the dark). Or the moon during the eclipse, or trying to capture the Catalina comet two weeks ago (I got an unconfirmed shot). My camera is not really suited to this. If I try to enhance the stars there is a lot of noise in the form of red dots or granules. Automatic focus simply fails, and manual focus is too sensitive to the touch. Infinite is not the end of the ring turn, but a millilitre or two before the end. To my dismay, several of my unrepeatable (except to immortals) shots are unfocussed :-/ I have learned how to handle it, but still a percent are bad. But the noise of the sensor has no remedy. Yes, a building can be shot at the lowest ISO, but not the stars: more than 5 seconds exposure with the 200 mm and the stars start to morph from dots into lines. Of course, the remedy is to buy a motorized stand for astronomy, but I'm not an astronomer.
When shotwell imports them, it generates another jpg file.
Are you saying that it automatically generates them on import? I don't like that. But such is your choice.
You can choose, use the camera generated one or the software one. I started with the first setting (I think it is the default), but bugs in the software meant it did not always detect both nef and jpg to be the same photo.
Huh, the sport setting. My camera is too slow focusing, sometimes going in one focus direction while the object is going in the other direction and completely blurring it, so much that I lose track of it and miss the shot :-( Happened with kids, eagles and seagulls. But often it works and the shots are worth it. Good thing that I don't have to pay for the film rolls ;-)
I think the comments are saved to the jpg file, but I'm not sure. It can not write to the .nef file.
A photoeditor should NEVER alter the original. My point about adding copyright to the RAW is that I'm paranoid about getting in there before any derivatives can be made. If my camera allowed me to insert the author/copyright information "at source" then I would use that. It doesn't, so I edit the RAW files with exiftools.
Mmm... good point. I'll have a look. What would be a suitable string to write there?
Digikam does not see the comments or tags of these photos. I don't know yet why. It does see them if made on cameras that generate a single jpg file.
There are many cameras, not least of the camera capabilities of cellphones, that ONLY generate GIFs or JPGs. I'm not saying that a cellphone can't produce a great photographs; put one in the hands of a professional and he or she will produce consistent quality just as easily as of were a high end DSLR or a 1950s Kodak box camera. Ultimately skill and creativity will trump technology. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Oh, I always have my cellphone with me, so they are very good for chance shots. I know that :-)
Neither does digikam notice that those 3 files are a single photo.
Of course not, its not a semantic scene analyser, some form of AI. its only a photo editor. if I adopted it after generating 50 to 60 variations on one RAW file, apply various 'scene' pre-sets, using darktable, it wouldn't recognise those either. The only reason darktable "does" is that it has its own database and history. So we're back to something 'external'.
digikam is also a photo organizer, and this is what I want most. For this role I'm using shotwell, and one problem is that one does not see well the organization that the other made, only partially. I would understand it of proprietary software, but not of open source.
It is *YOU* who have chose to set the camera to produce "RAW+JPG"
It is at that setting.
and it is *YOU* who selected the scene setting from which the camera's internal algorithms produced that JPG from the RAW. If you don't like that then why are you also producing the RAW, uploading it and using an image editor on it? Why not use just RAW and then "Hmm, that's a flower, OK apply pre-set flower and see what I get. Hmm, don't like that, go back to the raw and mask out the foreground and apply "bokeh" filter to the background. Better. Now lets play with the colour curve of those petals." BTDT.
Ah, but I'm not in that street yet :-)
A street near me has, fashionable, what looks like old gaslights even though they are actually electric. A RAW of that taken in brilliant sunlight on a cloudless day, make B&W in darktable, ad back spots of colour, highlight grain using solarization to give the effect of rain and most, , a wonderful "noir" Victorian street at dusk.
Sorry, there's no camera "scene" setting to do that. This is art. The camera is a tool. While I'm happy to let it do the focusing and for me and get the exposure close to what I want, that's mechanics. "Render unto the computer" and all that as Norbert Weiner said.
If I were dong this 40 years ago in the darkroom I had set up in the basement, with the enlarger, baths of chemicals, different types of paper, filters, pieces of cotton, mesh and wire and more, the database would be my notebook. Like they say, YMMV.
So be asking yourself: Why are you using a photeditor at all if you are taking the camera's idea of what the editing of the RAW to JPG should be?
No, I'm not using a photoeditor. Shotwell primary use is as organizer. It has a quick edit mode, yes, and it can launch external editors.
And if shotwell automatically generates a JPG on loading, then what algorithm is being used there? And is that a setting you can turn off?
If it fails to detect the JPG generated by the camera, it will ignore the photo. This is some bug, because it sees most of them.
I can tolerate 'automation' making low level decisions for me, when to turn the furnace on for the heating as the temperature falls, things like that. But making strategic, creative decisions, that's another matter. I very much doubt that shotwell could do recognise "ah a single close-up of a plant..." and apply the example reasoning, evaluation, masking and choice of enhancement that I gave in the above example. So why have it automatically generate a JPG you don't want?
No, the idea is simply to see the photos. If I then want to apply further "development", then I'd take the raw and do it. But that would be on a single photo out of hundreds. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/01/2016 03:19 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I see the point in using RAW only or RAW+JPG, but not in using the JPG setting alone - maybe on emergencies, hundreds of shots to do and no space in the card, no spare cards.
Bob Williams gave what I thought was a very good and reasoned explanation of why he might want to use "JPG ONLY". <quote> When I'm on holiday, most of what I shoot is snapshots, with occasionally some 'art' shots in there as well. I often get asked by friends if they can have a copy of one of the snapshots, or I might want to upload it there and then to social media. So, on holiday, I use RAW+JPG, when trying to be creative, always just RAW. </quote> If you are using RAW at all the implication is that you are later going to use a photoeditor (you choose shotwell, I choose darktable, some people use Adobe's Photosohp) to produce a JPG that is just what you want, cropped, highlighted, toned. Quite possibly more than one. Maybe other enhancements: sharpening, noise reductions, vignetting,. All beyond what the camera can do. Or you might run a VM windows and use the vendor's photoeditor. The point is Why bother have the camera produce a redundant JPG at all? Bob may make the point that those holiday snapshots he immediately shares are immedite shares, but he might ALSO want to do a proper edit of same, so he has the RAW as well. Realistically, he's more likely to run out of space (and battery power) on a vacation, isn't he? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 22:13, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 03:19 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
If you are using RAW at all the implication is that you are later going to use a photoeditor
No, the implication is that I think I /may/ later use a photoeditor ;-)
(you choose shotwell, I choose darktable, some
shotwell is primarily an organizer. It is similar to digikam, with much less features.
people use Adobe's Photosohp) to produce a JPG that is just what you want, cropped, highlighted, toned. Quite possibly more than one. Maybe other enhancements: sharpening, noise reductions, vignetting,. All beyond what the camera can do.
Or you might run a VM windows and use the vendor's photoeditor.
It is in my todo list...
The point is
Why bother have the camera produce a redundant JPG at all?
Because I can :-) Having both allows me to decide later. If I decide later I want the "other" format (whatever "other" is) and didn't do it, I cry.
Bob may make the point that those holiday snapshots he immediately shares are immedite shares, but he might ALSO want to do a proper edit of same, so he has the RAW as well.
Realistically, he's more likely to run out of space (and battery power) on a vacation, isn't he?
Which is why they sell you battery spares and cards :-P -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/01/2016 04:25 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-01 22:13, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 03:19 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
If you are using RAW at all the implication is that you are later going to use a photoeditor
No, the implication is that I think I /may/ later use a photoeditor ;-)
(you choose shotwell, I choose darktable, some
shotwell is primarily an organizer. It is similar to digikam, with much less features.
That contradicts what you've said earlier. You've already said that on import shotwell generates a jpg from the raw file. As for 'organizer", well darktable and photoshop have that capability as well, tagging, rating, grouping selection-by. The fact that the likes of Thee and Mee are already doing things like organizing the uploads into directories by date or by project or by occasion or event is completely beside the point. We're old file system hacks!
people use Adobe's Photosohp) to produce a JPG that is just what you want, cropped, highlighted, toned. Quite possibly more than one. Maybe other enhancements: sharpening, noise reductions, vignetting,. All beyond what the camera can do.
Or you might run a VM windows and use the vendor's photoeditor.
It is in my todo list...
You might prefer Darktable to Shotwell for number of reasons related to what you've been saying. I'm sure Patrick can contribute more on this.
The point is
Why bother have the camera produce a redundant JPG at all?
Because I can :-)
Having both allows me to decide later. If I decide later I want the "other" format (whatever "other" is) and didn't do it, I cry.
I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all. If you have the RAW you generate *ANY* type of jpg, the type the camera would have or some other-other-other.
Realistically, he's more likely to run out of space (and battery power) on a vacation, isn't he?
Which is why they sell you battery spares and cards :-P
You're the one who mentioned running you of card space ... -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 22:56, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 04:25 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
shotwell is primarily an organizer. It is similar to digikam, with much less features.
That contradicts what you've said earlier. You've already said that on import shotwell generates a jpg from the raw file.
It does, but you can not adjust the settings, they are automatic. I think it does the conversion because that is what it displays, not the .NEF file.
The point is
Why bother have the camera produce a redundant JPG at all?
Because I can :-)
Having both allows me to decide later. If I decide later I want the "other" format (whatever "other" is) and didn't do it, I cry.
I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all. If you have the RAW you generate *ANY* type of jpg, the type the camera would have or some other-other-other.
I can not generate the exact JPG the camera would have generated. For instance, a NEF typically has 20 MB. The corresponding JPG generated by the camera has 10 MB. The JPG generated by shotwell is only 2 or 3 MB. They are different JPG, generated differently. I want to have both and decide which to use at use time. Not close doors in advance.
Realistically, he's more likely to run out of space (and battery power) on a vacation, isn't he?
Which is why they sell you battery spares and cards :-P
You're the one who mentioned running you of card space ...
I have run out the battery in only 2 or 3 hours, just by using the remote wifi controller. Without it, I do not need yet extra batteries nor cards. The USB cable can not power the camera nor charge it. For that, you need another type of cable and accessories. It is all about selling you extras. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 02/01/2016 05:24 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I can not generate the exact JPG the camera would have generated. For instance, a NEF typically has 20 MB. The corresponding JPG generated by the camera has 10 MB. The JPG generated by shotwell is only 2 or 3 MB.
They are different JPG, generated differently. I want to have both and decide which to use at use time. Not close doors in advance.
Again, I think you're missing the point. The camera uses the same algorithms every time, no variation. A photoeditor can do variations, as I've said, masking and more. My personal opinion is that that the images I've seen generated for those 'defaults' are not to my taste, but then I'm a Brit, and just as I think British loudspeakers sound 'right' and the Japanese one sound too "brassy", I think the colour vibrancy of the Japanese jpgs is all wrong. That's me. YMMV. The size of a RAW file is pretty much fixed, its a dump of the sensor, Bit by bit. The size of any jpg is going to vary A LOT depending on a number of things. Its size - as in dimensions, 10x8 vs 4x6 vs "wallet size" vs "poster size". Its also based on run-length encoding so a large area of monochrome will be coded smaller than a graded or multicolour surface. A jpg is 'lossy', and that loss can occur in many different ways. it is also compressed. It _could_ even be a compression of the bit image, although that seems wasteful given there are other ways to encode arrays of bits - run-length being one of them. The whole point of converting RAW to JPG is that it opens doors. An almost infinite number of them. Example: one of my areas of interest is macro photography of flowers. The city has many gardens and their contents change though the year. The are plant societies that hold events and competitions. Its a rich area. My cameras have "plant/macro" scene settings. Early on I did what you are claiming. The results ended up that about 0.5% of the time I kept the camera generated JPG. Even then, the version I edited from the RAW using Darktable was much more satisfactory. The only reason I could possibly think of for RAW+JPG is the need to immediately post to social media, as Bob pointed out. I haven't hit that and don't foresee it. I think you're grasping at straws here. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-02 00:04, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 02/01/2016 05:24 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I can not generate the exact JPG the camera would have generated. For instance, a NEF typically has 20 MB. The corresponding JPG generated by the camera has 10 MB. The JPG generated by shotwell is only 2 or 3 MB.
They are different JPG, generated differently. I want to have both and decide which to use at use time. Not close doors in advance.
Again, I think you're missing the point.
No. I mean that I prefer the camera to create both formats, and also my computer to generate another jpg, and have them all. I don't see the advantage in telling the camera to not generate the jpg. Space? There is plenty. Speed? Not a problem here. While I can I prefer to have both generators.
Example: one of my areas of interest is macro photography of flowers. The city has many gardens and their contents change though the year. The are plant societies that hold events and competitions. Its a rich area. My cameras have "plant/macro" scene settings. Early on I did what you are claiming. The results ended up that about 0.5% of the time I kept the camera generated JPG. Even then, the version I edited from the RAW using Darktable was much more satisfactory. The only reason I could possibly think of for RAW+JPG is the need to immediately post to social media, as Bob pointed out. I haven't hit that and don't foresee it.
I have. :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 01/02/2016 22:13, Anton Aylward a écrit :
explanation of why he might want to use "JPG ONLY".
I use jpg only. you can edit jpg, with less details than raw, but you can. I do a kind of news paper photos: informational photos, not academic ones. I make photo since more than 60 years, so I was used to spare films and try to make the good image at once. But this is not possible for my present work :-) I have to make a huge number of images, because my main subject (singers) is moving extremely fast in unpredictable way (not to speak about color lights). I often have to shoot small gusts (3 to 5) photos to have one good. I began with an EOS 350D, then an EOS50D, but even the second was too limited in dark, very poor light I have to deal with, so I had to pay for what I needed. In fact, I change hardware when the old one can't anymore make what I ask. I then noticed than high end cameras have not only better hardware, but also much better software than low end ones, and the automatic controls of the EOS 5D are extremely effective. When I' in a hurry and have an unexpected situation I use them. I any other situation, I could setup my own tricks and record them on the dedicated place I can reach instantly. So I'm very glad of my hardware. That said I also have a small Sony RX100MII mostly for holidays use (the 5D is pretty heavy :-) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2016 05:04 PM, jdd wrote:
I began with an EOS 350D, then an EOS50D, but even the second was too limited in dark, very poor light I have to deal with, so I had to pay for what I needed. In fact, I change hardware when the old one can't anymore make what I ask.
Ultimately its an issue of the light gathering power of the lens. Historically, Canon produced a couple of extraordinary lenses in this area then stopped making them, they are collectors pieces now. One, IIR, was a F0.9 lens. A 50mm "dream lens" http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/06/03/the-canon-50mm-f0-95-dream-lens-an-... http://www.paulmarbrook.com/sony-a7-canon-50mm-f0-95-dream-lens/ More recently, Leica have come up with a F0.9 lens http://www.amazon.com/Leica-50mm-f0-95-ASPH-E60/dp/B001IKEX68 I'm not saying you should buy that one. IIR Canon also produces an exemplary f1.2 lens that was clear and distortion free at full aperture! Many people say that Canon produce one of the best ranges of lenses of any DSLR. And some 'classics' http://www.canonclassics.com/lenses.php?brand=Canon&mount=FDn&type=Prime The downside is that much of the best Canon glass is FD mount. Or .. http://petapixel.com/2014/09/18/old-inexpensive-and-tack-sharp-canons-best-l...
I then noticed than high end cameras have not only better hardware, but also much better software than low end ones,
LOL! Same with cars. Power systems, air conditioning, automatic gears, anti-skid brakes and more started with the high-end luxury "boats' and eventually trickled down to the mid range, compacts and subcompacts. Its happening with camera world as well.
That said I also have a small Sony RX100MII mostly for holidays use (the 5D is pretty heavy :-)
And hey, your cell phone is even lighter. It looks like "4k" is a the new standard, but Nokia did produce a 41Meg camera phone. http://www.microsoft.com/en/mobile/phone/lumia1020/ http://www.phonerated.com/top-rated-best-overall-camera-phones-global http://allusefulinfo.com/top-5-smartphones-with-more-than-20-mp-camera/ -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 02/02/2016 01:14, Anton Aylward a écrit :
Ultimately its an issue of the light gathering power of the lens.
nope. High aperture objectives do also give very lox depth of field, I have to stay around 5.6 to have around 20cm dof the sensor senitivity is essential. I can shoot at ISO 25000 with acceptable sharpness (not ideal, but acceptable because nobody can do better :-) and - 1/160s
Historically, Canon produced a couple of extraordinary lenses in this area then stopped making them, they are collectors pieces now.
and always where extremely expensive :-) I mostly use the 24-105 kit zoom (excellent), but also have a 85 f/1.8 and like it a lot, but dof is pretty hard to manage with it
That said I also have a small Sony RX100MII mostly for holidays use (the 5D is pretty heavy :-)
And hey, your cell phone is even lighter. It looks like "4k" is a the new standard, but Nokia did produce a 41Meg camera phone.
yes, but these phones are extremely expensive, and easy to stole or drop. that said, raw or jpg are all a question of file size, recording speed and time to edit later. Some people send the image files directly from they camera to the net (wifi), other take hours to make a shot. jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Digikam is the better Gui tool to manage photos in kde, so I asked Gilles Caulier about this looks like the comments in kde are related to Baloo, and Baloo is so buggy that digikam wont probably deal ith it and it seems han in Leap 42.1 Baloo is pretty minimal, installed according to yast, but with no real interface, at least in plasma jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-30-16 11:15]:
On 2016-01-30 17:05, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/30/2016 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database somewhere or in a hidden file.
BUT gwenview/dolphin do not write to the meatadata INSIDE the image.
I had forgotten about the "KDE semantic whatever" (database?)
Clearly I can not use gwenview to write the comments. Shotwell is a candidate, but I'd prefer something similar to gwenview, because it runs faster and doesn't "import" photos. A GUI tool, not CLI.
iiuc, it appears the gwenview problem relates to it being plasma5 and kipi plugins for the most part kde4. When the kipi plugins are plasma5 the functionality will return to gwenview. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/01/2016 22:36, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [01-30-16 11:15]:
Clearly I can not use gwenview to write the comments. Shotwell is a candidate, but I'd prefer something similar to gwenview, because it runs faster and doesn't "import" photos. A GUI tool, not CLI.
iiuc, it appears the gwenview problem relates to it being plasma5 and kipi plugins for the most part kde4. When the kipi plugins are plasma5 the functionality will return to gwenview.
Well, I can't, I use openSUSE 13.1 -- Saludos/Cheers, Carlos E.R. (Minas-Morgul - W10) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/01/16 21:36, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-30-16 11:15]:
On 2016-01-30 17:05, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/30/2016 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database somewhere or in a hidden file.
BUT gwenview/dolphin do not write to the meatadata INSIDE the image.
I had forgotten about the "KDE semantic whatever" (database?)
Clearly I can not use gwenview to write the comments. Shotwell is a candidate, but I'd prefer something similar to gwenview, because it runs faster and doesn't "import" photos. A GUI tool, not CLI.
iiuc, it appears the gwenview problem relates to it being plasma5 and kipi plugins for the most part kde4. When the kipi plugins are plasma5 the functionality will return to gwenview.
I am on Leap 42. I have just named a jpg in Digikam. Viewing the same file in Gwenview, I can see its name. Gwenview calls it 'Object Name' in the Meta Information sidebar. You may have to enable it under More... -- Bob Williams System: Linux 4.1.15-8-default Distro: openSUSE 42.1 (x86_64) with KDE Development Platform: 4.14.10
* Bob Williams <linux@karmasailing.uk> [01-31-16 13:54]:
On 30/01/16 21:36, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-30-16 11:15]:
On 2016-01-30 17:05, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/30/2016 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database somewhere or in a hidden file.
BUT gwenview/dolphin do not write to the meatadata INSIDE the image.
I had forgotten about the "KDE semantic whatever" (database?)
Clearly I can not use gwenview to write the comments. Shotwell is a candidate, but I'd prefer something similar to gwenview, because it runs faster and doesn't "import" photos. A GUI tool, not CLI.
iiuc, it appears the gwenview problem relates to it being plasma5 and kipi plugins for the most part kde4. When the kipi plugins are plasma5 the functionality will return to gwenview.
I am on Leap 42. I have just named a jpg in Digikam. Viewing the same file in Gwenview, I can see its name. Gwenview calls it 'Object Name' in the Meta Information sidebar. You may have to enable it under More...
I believe you are using a different unrelated case, but do you have plasma5 or still kde4? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 31/01/16 19:07, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Bob Williams <linux@karmasailing.uk> [01-31-16 13:54]:
On 30/01/16 21:36, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-30-16 11:15]:
On 2016-01-30 17:05, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/30/2016 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database somewhere or in a hidden file.
BUT gwenview/dolphin do not write to the meatadata INSIDE the image.
I had forgotten about the "KDE semantic whatever" (database?)
Clearly I can not use gwenview to write the comments. Shotwell is a candidate, but I'd prefer something similar to gwenview, because it runs faster and doesn't "import" photos. A GUI tool, not CLI.
iiuc, it appears the gwenview problem relates to it being plasma5 and kipi plugins for the most part kde4. When the kipi plugins are plasma5 the functionality will return to gwenview.
I am on Leap 42. I have just named a jpg in Digikam. Viewing the same file in Gwenview, I can see its name. Gwenview calls it 'Object Name' in the Meta Information sidebar. You may have to enable it under More...
I believe you are using a different unrelated case, but do you have plasma5 or still kde4?
plasma5, I think. Whatever Leap comes with. Ignore my sig. Apologies if I've misunderstood the question. -- Bob Williams System: Linux 4.1.15-8-default Distro: openSUSE 42.1 (x86_64) with KDE Development Platform: 4.14.16
Carlos, et al -- I have loved watching all of this unfold! FWIW, I'm a hard-core command-line guy and I keep my originals untouched and immediately copy them to a parallel tree for stamping, editing, cropping, and so on :-) ...and then Carlos E. R. said... % % On 2016-01-30 17:05, Anton Aylward wrote: % % > I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database % > somewhere or in a hidden file. ... % % I had forgotten about the "KDE semantic whatever" (database?) % % Clearly I can not use gwenview to write the comments. Shotwell is a % candidate, but I'd prefer something similar to gwenview, because it runs % faster and doesn't "import" photos. A GUI tool, not CLI. [snip] One other suggestion, since in your rundown of tools I don't think you ever found one suitable all the way through... What is the gwenview DB format? Can you parse it? If you like the tool, go ahead and use it for "Stage 1", and then -- once you have comments for all of your files -- move on to "Stage 2" and use a script to extract the comments and apply them to the EXIF fields. Yes, that part is [delightfully :-] CLI, but you get to do your work where you're most comfortable. HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/email/ See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/tofu.txt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 11:36, David T-G wrote:
Carlos, et al --
I have loved watching all of this unfold! FWIW, I'm a hard-core command-line guy and I keep my originals untouched and immediately copy them to a parallel tree for stamping, editing, cropping, and so on :-)
Yes, there is a lot of sense in that.
One other suggestion, since in your rundown of tools I don't think you ever found one suitable all the way through...
It seems I have to use several tools, one for each thing.
What is the gwenview DB format? Can you parse it?
Probably sqlite, but I don't even know where the file is.
If you like the tool, go ahead and use it for "Stage 1", and then -- once you have comments for all of your files -- move on to "Stage 2" and use a script to extract the comments and apply them to the EXIF fields. Yes, that part is [delightfully :-] CLI, but you get to do your work where you're most comfortable.
Ha, quite complicated. Better use other tools to write the info directly where I want it. Anyway, I don't even know where is the database written by gwenview. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 01/30/2016 08:05 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
I forget if the gwenview/dolphin comments and stars are in a database somewhere or in a hidden file.
Well, in dolphin, the preview bar is fully capable of displaying exif info. Only the tags, comments, and stars can be edited. exiftool has such a boatload of capability that you pretty much need a frontend to deal with it. Anyone have any good gui candidates for this? -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Dne So 30. ledna 2016 16:01:48, Carlos E. R. napsal(a):
Sigh.
I'm scanning old photographic negatives with a compact scanner (a reflecta X7), and writing comments on the photos with Gwenview. But I have a problem: other programs do not see them.
I don't see them with exif tools, for instance.
I don't see them with shotwell.
Conversely, if I write the comments with shotwell (which is configured to write metadata to the photos, not to a database), I don't see them in gwenview (but they do with "exif", tag "User Comment")
I hesitate to continue writing comments till I verify that they are in fact written to the photo files, and that other programs read them.
I don't see any configuration option in Gwenview regarding this.
(why Gwenview? Because rotating photos is fast here, and it doesn't do any library import. For the moment I only want to put each roll in its own directory. Writing comments is also easy, although they are easyer to see in Shotwell)
I'm not doing photo edit for the moment. Just archiving.
(Old slides have lost a lot of the colour)
I came late to that discussion, so that just few notes. I do not trust any tool saving comments outside commented files and specifically I do not trust KDE semantic tools in this way because of various problems and technological instability. My personal impression, but no, thanks. Good for searching, not for storing extra information. For music files I modify ID3 tags in Amarok. There is explicit settings to save those data in the files. It works perfectly. For EXIF comments I use digiKam. I'm not sure what should be the difference between the name and description (apparently some applications deal with it differently), so I keep same text in both. It seems Dolphin (KDE4) is not able to read EXIF comments, but I export photos from digiKam to Piwigo web gallery and another tools and it works there perfectly, so that I'm fine with it. HTH, V. -- Vojtěch Zeisek Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/ https://trapa.cz/
Le 31/01/2016 10:53, Vojtěch Zeisek a écrit :
differently), so I keep same text in both. It seems Dolphin (KDE4) is not able to read EXIF comments, but I export photos from digiKam to Piwigo web gallery and another tools and it works there perfectly, so that I'm fine with it. HTH, V.
same for me (digikam and piwigo) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 12:04, jdd wrote:
Le 31/01/2016 10:53, Vojtěch Zeisek a écrit :
differently), so I keep same text in both. It seems Dolphin (KDE4) is not able to read EXIF comments, but I export photos from digiKam to Piwigo web gallery and another tools and it works there perfectly, so that I'm fine with it.
same for me (digikam and piwigo)
piwigo? I just read the home page of the site, but I don't quite get it. It is a software to upload your photos to a site? Any site, or their site? -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-31-16 07:26]:
On 2016-01-31 12:04, jdd wrote:
Le 31/01/2016 10:53, Vojtěch Zeisek a écrit :
differently), so I keep same text in both. It seems Dolphin (KDE4) is not able to read EXIF comments, but I export photos from digiKam to Piwigo web gallery and another tools and it works there perfectly, so that I'm fine with it.
same for me (digikam and piwigo)
piwigo?
I just read the home page of the site, but I don't quite get it. It is a software to upload your photos to a site? Any site, or their site?
http://www.piwigo.org -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
31. ledna 2016 14:06:36 CET, Patrick Shanahan <paka@opensuse.org> napsal:
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-31-16 07:26]:
On 2016-01-31 12:04, jdd wrote:
Le 31/01/2016 10:53, Vojtěch Zeisek a écrit :
differently), so I keep same text in both. It seems Dolphin (KDE4) is not able to read EXIF comments, but I export photos from digiKam to Piwigo web gallery and another tools and it works there perfectly, so that I'm fine with it.
same for me (digikam and piwigo)
piwigo?
I just read the home page of the site, but I don't quite get it. It is a software to upload your photos to a site? Any site, or their site?
Web gallery - PHP based server application - CMS for photos. Install it to own server, tune and enjoy. It has API for uploading and Kipi plugins (among others) support it. -- Vojtěch Zeisek http://trapa.cz/cs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 14:32, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
31. ledna 2016 14:06:36 CET, Patrick Shanahan <> napsal:
* Carlos E. R. <> [01-31-16 07:26]:
piwigo?
I just read the home page of the site, but I don't quite get it. It is a software to upload your photos to a site? Any site, or their site?
Yes, that's the home site I was reading.
Web gallery - PHP based server application - CMS for photos. Install it to own server, tune and enjoy. It has API for uploading and Kipi plugins (among others) support it.
Ah, my own site. Then it is not much use to me. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 31/01/2016 13:24, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
piwigo?
I just read the home page of the site, but I don't quite get it. It is a software to upload your photos to a site? Any site, or their site?
both. As said by others, it's a php application to keep your photos / videos on your own site, but they also rent room o they own server for people not wanting to manage the application themselves my own site: http://dodin.info/piwigo/index.php (approx 42000 photos / videos) - I maintain myself a video plugin. jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 15:01, jdd wrote:
Le 31/01/2016 13:24, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
piwigo?
I just read the home page of the site, but I don't quite get it. It is a software to upload your photos to a site? Any site, or their site?
both. As said by others, it's a php application to keep your photos / videos on your own site, but they also rent room o they own server for people not wanting to manage the application themselves
Ah, rented space on piwigo.org? Interesting. I'm using google photo to share some of my photos with some people. Maybe not the best, but it is fast and "gratis".
my own site:
http://dodin.info/piwigo/index.php
(approx 42000 photos / videos) - I maintain myself a video plugin.
Interesting... -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 31/01/2016 15:12, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
Ah, rented space on piwigo.org? Interesting.
yes, http://piwigo.org/hosting/ photos only (no video)
I'm using google photo to share some of my photos with some people. Maybe not the best, but it is fast and "gratis".
yes but the licence you give is scary
my own site:
http://dodin.info/piwigo/index.php
(approx 42000 photos / videos) - I maintain myself a video plugin.
Interesting...
I can host a gallery for you (but given my age, can't garanty for years) - I already do that for friends (example: http://www.lheptagonienne.fr/) but piwigo is easy to have at home, I remember you have fiber connection? so home server is easy to have jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 15:15, jdd wrote:
Le 31/01/2016 15:12, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
Ah, rented space on piwigo.org? Interesting.
yes,
photos only (no video)
I'm using google photo to share some of my photos with some people. Maybe not the best, but it is fast and "gratis".
yes but the licence you give is scary
Well, it is not that bad. At least in the manner I use it. They are not world-shared files. One thing about google is that they do data mining, but they don't hide it from you. When they started giving mail accounts I remember reading their conditions and they clearly said the posts were machine-scanned. I prefer being told, compared to others than hide the facts in tons of small print. It is more honest.
I can host a gallery for you (but given my age, can't garanty for years) - I already do that for friends (example: http://www.lheptagonienne.fr/)
Ah, thanks, but don't worry :-)
but piwigo is easy to have at home, I remember you have fiber connection? so home server is easy to have
Yes, I might. I already have a laptop running as server full time. I'd have to setup apache in some dual config to render different content for intranet and internet. I have not thought about it yet. Anyway, it is not symmetric bandwidth. It is 300 Mbit download, and I don't remember what upload, but much less, perhaps 30. Another competitor offers 300 symmetric. I'll have to check again what I really have now, then get dyndns or something (whatever my router supports directly, I guess). -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-31-16 17:01]: [...]
Yes, I might. I already have a laptop running as server full time. I'd have to setup apache in some dual config to render different content for intranet and internet. I have not thought about it yet.
Anyway, it is not symmetric bandwidth. It is 300 Mbit download, and I don't remember what upload, but much less, perhaps 30. Another competitor offers 300 symmetric. I'll have to check again what I really have now, then get dyndns or something (whatever my router supports directly, I guess).
To serve photos, especially reduced size or thumbnails where parties only want to see a small portion full-screen or full-sized, 30mb up would be very sufficient. I only have 6mb up and my site is quite snappy, but service is not cheap and that level is several steps up. afa a dydns service, you do not need router support. I have no-ip and my router doesn't support it. I broadcast my site ip to no-ip frequently and if it changes, they adjust. I paid us$6 about 10 years ago for "life-time" service :) I use gallery2 (php) and apache and setup is miniminal. I tried piwigo several years ago, but failed miserably to make it work. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Dne Ne 31. ledna 2016 17:12:15, Patrick Shanahan napsal(a):
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [01-31-16 17:01]: [...]
Yes, I might. I already have a laptop running as server full time. I'd have to setup apache in some dual config to render different content for intranet and internet. I have not thought about it yet.
Anyway, it is not symmetric bandwidth. It is 300 Mbit download, and I don't remember what upload, but much less, perhaps 30. Another competitor offers 300 symmetric. I'll have to check again what I really have now, then get dyndns or something (whatever my router supports directly, I guess).
To serve photos, especially reduced size or thumbnails where parties only want to see a small portion full-screen or full-sized, 30mb up would be very sufficient. I only have 6mb up and my site is quite snappy, but service is not cheap and that level is several steps up.
afa a dydns service, you do not need router support. I have no-ip and my router doesn't support it. I broadcast my site ip to no-ip frequently and if it changes, they adjust. I paid us$6 about 10 years ago for "life-time" service :)
I use gallery2 (php) and apache and setup is miniminal. I tried piwigo several years ago, but failed miserably to make it work.
I used Gallery 2 and 3. Developers recently stopped to work on it and I started to have problems with it. After short testing I moved to Piwigo and I was even able to import data from Gallery 3. I'm very happy with it. I didn't measure network traffic, but with some intelligent compression I wouldn't be afraid of network limits... -- Vojtěch Zeisek Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/ https://trapa.cz/
Le 31/01/2016 22:59, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
Well, it is not that bad. At least in the manner I use it. They are not world-shared files.
they are in a certain manner. As far as I know (but this may have changed), you do not nedd a password to access them, only the url. so no privacy really I don't want my family photos at risk of being shared because some family member inadvertently publish the url On piwigo, I can publish the url and say "reserved to subscribed family members" jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 10:39, jdd wrote:
Le 31/01/2016 22:59, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
Well, it is not that bad. At least in the manner I use it. They are not world-shared files.
they are in a certain manner. As far as I know (but this may have changed), you do not nedd a password to access them, only the url.
so no privacy really
Depends on your choices. It can be an URL, but it can be a google login, in which case you specify the people to share the photos with.
I don't want my family photos at risk of being shared because some family member inadvertently publish the url
Those I send the URL, it is photos I do not mind, or photos I took of them, so it is up to them to be careful ;-) After a suitable time, I'll remove those photos. Actually, I use a sharing site because emailing that amount of large files is impossible.
On piwigo, I can publish the url and say "reserved to subscribed family members"
Yes, I'll have a look, but google is cheaper ;-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [02-01-16 08:45]:
On 2016-02-01 10:39, jdd wrote: [...]
On piwigo, I can publish the url and say "reserved to subscribed family members"
Yes, I'll have a look, but google is cheaper ;-)
Only if you refer to "renting" space from piwigo. Serving the photos from your own computer employes costs you already incur, for the most part. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 14:51, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [02-01-16 08:45]:
On 2016-02-01 10:39, jdd wrote: [...]
On piwigo, I can publish the url and say "reserved to subscribed family members"
Yes, I'll have a look, but google is cheaper ;-)
Only if you refer to "renting" space from piwigo. Serving the photos from your own computer employes costs you already incur, for the most part.
Ah, yes. True. Does it create a fully static page, or does it rely on runtime scripting? php or whatever, I'm not familiar with any of that. The laptop that I use for "home server" is a pentium IV - LOL. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Dne Po 1. února 2016 15:15:01, Carlos E. R. napsal(a):
On 2016-02-01 14:51, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [02-01-16 08:45]:
On 2016-02-01 10:39, jdd wrote: [...]
On piwigo, I can publish the url and say "reserved to subscribed family members"
Yes, I'll have a look, but google is cheaper ;-)
Only if you refer to "renting" space from piwigo. Serving the photos from your own computer employes costs you already incur, for the most part.
Ah, yes. True.
Does it create a fully static page, or does it rely on runtime scripting? php or whatever, I'm not familiar with any of that. The laptop that I use for "home server" is a pentium IV - LOL.
I'm not sure what You mean, but as PHP application, Apache with mod_php and some DB must be running all the time, but the Piwigo itself has caching to reduce performance impact. Also settings of Apache or special caching server can help very much. But installation is simple - unpack it into some directory, navigate there in web browser, fill DB credentials and few more points and enjoy. :-) Some time ago I was using jalbum. It is Java application syncing local folders with images into static HTML gallery. Very simple, very fast, beautiful. Although I was working with it ~5 years ago, so I don't know how it is now with it. DigiKam also has (via KIPI plugins) possibility to export directory into simple HTML gallery. But maybe too simple... Anyway, it depends what You wish to get... HTH, V. -- Vojtěch Zeisek Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/ https://trapa.cz/
Le 01/02/2016 15:22, Vojtěch Zeisek a écrit :
Some time ago I was using jalbum. It is Java application syncing local folders
piwigo is very flexible about the way it uses photos. * There is a digikam module that exports directly from digikam to piwigo (kipi plugin) * there is at least one, may be several piwigo native modules to uplod photos. * the way i use is to upload photos with dolphin using fish to folders on the server and after that use the sync function of piwigo to update the database. That way I keep exact track of what are the uploaded photos and where they are. piwogo can be installed anywhere if you have web site with ftp access, php and mysql, the disk saize depends only of the images, and piwigo do not read raw files, so the size is reasonable with 42000 photo I use 113 Gb piwigo displays images is various sizes (user selected), with the 2.7 version, these size are created at read time, then cached so only created once. By he way, carlos, if you want to get a look, I can create a (free) session for you on my server for as long as I can manage it :-) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 15:57, jdd wrote:
Le 01/02/2016 15:22, Vojtěch Zeisek a écrit :
Some time ago I was using jalbum. It is Java application syncing local folders
piwigo is very flexible about the way it uses photos.
* There is a digikam module that exports directly from digikam to piwigo (kipi plugin)
* there is at least one, may be several piwigo native modules to uplod photos.
Ah.
* the way i use is to upload photos with dolphin using fish to folders on the server and after that use the sync function of piwigo to update the database. That way I keep exact track of what are the uploaded photos and where they are.
piwogo can be installed anywhere if you have web site with ftp access, php and mysql, the disk saize depends only of the images, and piwigo do not read raw files, so the size is reasonable
with 42000 photo I use 113 Gb
piwigo displays images is various sizes (user selected), with the 2.7 version, these size are created at read time, then cached so only created once.
By he way, carlos, if you want to get a look, I can create a (free) session for you on my server for as long as I can manage it :-)
No, no, thanks. I may eventually have a good look at piwigo, but I will take my time about it ;-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [02-01-16 09:17]:
On 2016-02-01 14:51, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [02-01-16 08:45]:
On 2016-02-01 10:39, jdd wrote: [...]
On piwigo, I can publish the url and say "reserved to subscribed family members"
Yes, I'll have a look, but google is cheaper ;-)
Only if you refer to "renting" space from piwigo. Serving the photos from your own computer employes costs you already incur, for the most part.
Ah, yes. True.
Does it create a fully static page, or does it rely on runtime scripting? php or whatever, I'm not familiar with any of that. The laptop that I use for "home server" is a pentium IV - LOL.
gallery2/3 is php and I believe piwigo is also. Until it died, I also ran my server on a pent iv. Speed of the server machine is of little consequence. It is the speed of the net connection which makes the major difference. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 01/02/2016 14:43, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
After a suitable time, I'll remove those photos.
I keep all of them, it's easier to search and see than the local archive :-), and it's a supplementary copy/archive I also manage there my video files, but only on (relatively) bad quality, full HD video is extremely disk demanding jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Anyway, it is not symmetric bandwidth. It is 300 Mbit download, and I don't remember what upload, but much less, perhaps 30. Another competitor offers 300 symmetric. I'll have to check again what I really have now, then get dyndns or something (whatever my router supports directly, I guess).
You can always run a dyndns update from a cronjob. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (13.9°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 11:38, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Anyway, it is not symmetric bandwidth. It is 300 Mbit download, and I don't remember what upload, but much less, perhaps 30. Another competitor offers 300 symmetric. I'll have to check again what I really have now, then get dyndns or something (whatever my router supports directly, I guess).
You can always run a dyndns update from a cronjob.
Yes, I know. But there will be an interval, after my ISP changes my IP till the script runs, that they will not match. My router has settings for DynDNS.org, TZO, and No-IP. I have not investigated any. At least, not recently. Years ago, I managed to write a script that logged into my router and interrogated it for the external IP. In my current router I don't see I can do this. The advantage is that it is fast, not requiring to query an external web page. I have a script that does this, but the response takes several seconds and sometimes fails completely and has to be repeated. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [02-01-16 09:20]:
On 2016-02-01 11:38, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Anyway, it is not symmetric bandwidth. It is 300 Mbit download, and I don't remember what upload, but much less, perhaps 30. Another competitor offers 300 symmetric. I'll have to check again what I really have now, then get dyndns or something (whatever my router supports directly, I guess).
You can always run a dyndns update from a cronjob.
Yes, I know. But there will be an interval, after my ISP changes my IP till the script runs, that they will not match.
My router has settings for DynDNS.org, TZO, and No-IP. I have not investigated any. At least, not recently.
Years ago, I managed to write a script that logged into my router and interrogated it for the external IP. In my current router I don't see I can do this. The advantage is that it is fast, not requiring to query an external web page. I have a script that does this, but the response takes several seconds and sometimes fails completely and has to be repeated.
following might help :) :: # <--------- Cool Functions by Crouse--------> # Cool Functions for your .bashrc file. #myip - finds your current IP if your connected to the internet myip () { lynx -dump -hiddenlinks=ignore -nolist http://checkip.dyndns.org:8245/ | awk '{ print $4 }' | sed '/^$/d; s/^[ ]*//g; s/[ ]*$//g' } #netinfo - shows network information for your system netinfo () { echo "--------------- Network Information ---------------" /sbin/ifconfig | awk /'inet addr/ {print $2}' /sbin/ifconfig | awk /'Bcast/ {print $3}' /sbin/ifconfig | awk /'inet addr/ {print $4}' /sbin/ifconfig | awk /'HWaddr/ {print $4,$5}' myip=`lynx -dump -hiddenlinks=ignore -nolist http://checkip.dyndns.org:8245/ | sed '/^$/d; s/^[ ]*//g; s/[ ]*$//g' ` echo "${myip}" echo "---------------------------------------------------" } # <--------- Cool Functions by Crouse--------> Cool functions downloaded from IBM, freely available And I have a script from noip which queries my ip addr and reports changes back to noip.com adjusting when necessary. The query runs every 10 minutes but miniminal system load and only reports changes which only happen if I *reset* my modem/router (not power cycle) or there is an extended network outage (which has happened) or I direct the router to request a new ip addr. Except for wide network outage, I cannot remember a time when my system was inaccessable from the net :) (fingers crossed). -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
following might help :) ::
# <--------- Cool Functions by Crouse--------> # Cool Functions for your .bashrc file.
#myip - finds your current IP if your connected to the internet myip () { lynx -dump -hiddenlinks=ignore -nolist http://checkip.dyndns.org:8245/ | awk '{ print $4 }' | sed '/^$/d; s/^[ ]*//g; s/[ ]*$//g' }
Seems a little complicated to me. Besides who has lynx installed anymore :-) http://www.dns24.ch/checkip -- Per Jessen, Zürich (12.8°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
* Per Jessen <per@computer.org> [02-01-16 11:09]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
following might help :) ::
# <--------- Cool Functions by Crouse--------> # Cool Functions for your .bashrc file.
#myip - finds your current IP if your connected to the internet myip () { lynx -dump -hiddenlinks=ignore -nolist http://checkip.dyndns.org:8245/ | awk '{ print $4 }' | sed '/^$/d; s/^[ ]*//g; s/[ ]*$//g' }
Seems a little complicated to me. Besides who has lynx installed anymore :-)
simple matter to change to w3m :)
which also requires a browser, w3m/lynx/links/elinks/.... In an xterm, I type: myip and it provides: 108.246.208.62 -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Per Jessen <per@computer.org> [02-01-16 11:09]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
following might help :) ::
# <--------- Cool Functions by Crouse--------> # Cool Functions for your .bashrc file.
#myip - finds your current IP if your connected to the internet myip () { lynx -dump -hiddenlinks=ignore -nolist http://checkip.dyndns.org:8245/ | awk '{ print $4 }' | sed '/^$/d; s/^[ ]*//g; s/[ ]*$//g' }
Seems a little complicated to me. Besides who has lynx installed anymore :-)
simple matter to change to w3m :)
The cmdline arguments probably aren't the same, but never mind.
which also requires a browser, w3m/lynx/links/elinks/....
or curl/wget, but no sed'ing and awk'ing. Anyway, typically you wouldn't need to know your IP when doing a dyndns update. With dns24 for instance, you just specify "data=client" when you're updating. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (11.4°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 18:45, Per Jessen wrote:
Anyway, typically you wouldn't need to know your IP when doing a dyndns update. With dns24 for instance, you just specify "data=client" when you're updating.
What people do is compare the current external IP with what it was the previous cron job run, and only tell dyndns when it actually changed. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-01 18:45, Per Jessen wrote:
Anyway, typically you wouldn't need to know your IP when doing a dyndns update. With dns24 for instance, you just specify "data=client" when you're updating.
What people do is compare the current external IP with what it was the previous cron job run, and only tell dyndns when it actually changed.
Which is superfluous and a little wasteful. Consider: 1. check my external IP = one http request 2. if changed, new http request to update as opposed to: 1. one http request to update. (obviously, the provider knows if any actual change happened). -- Per Jessen, Zürich (6.9°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-02 08:22, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
What people do is compare the current external IP with what it was the previous cron job run, and only tell dyndns when it actually changed.
Which is superfluous and a little wasteful.
Consider:
1. check my external IP = one http request 2. if changed, new http request to update
as opposed to:
1. one http request to update. (obviously, the provider knows if any actual change happened).
I remember reading at one dynamic IP site that they explicitly asked people not to update the IP if it had not changed, to reduce load on their servers. I don't remember where I read this. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/2016 07:27 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I remember reading at one dynamic IP site that they explicitly asked people not to update the IP if it had not changed, to reduce load on their servers. I don't remember where I read this.
Dyndns.org And their client, ddclient, doesn't perform unnecessary updates. And their client can be used a a dozen different sites, and even in routers, so why are we still re-inventing the wheel here? - -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlaxe14ACgkQv7M3G5+2DLKdEACgmGv9lj72qT/01U5P1QLYw1C9 RLcAn3MTTGlMVHh16qJcffVeMA6O570q =Autm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
* Per Jessen <per@computer.org> [02-01-16 12:45]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Per Jessen <per@computer.org> [02-01-16 11:09]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
following might help :) ::
# <--------- Cool Functions by Crouse--------> # Cool Functions for your .bashrc file.
#myip - finds your current IP if your connected to the internet myip () { lynx -dump -hiddenlinks=ignore -nolist http://checkip.dyndns.org:8245/ | awk '{ print $4 }' | sed '/^$/d; s/^[ ]*//g; s/[ ]*$//g' }
Seems a little complicated to me. Besides who has lynx installed anymore :-)
simple matter to change to w3m :)
The cmdline arguments probably aren't the same, but never mind.
which also requires a browser, w3m/lynx/links/elinks/....
or curl/wget, but no sed'ing and awk'ing.
yes, "w3m -dump http://dns24.ch/checkip" works fine.
Anyway, typically you wouldn't need to know your IP when doing a dyndns update. With dns24 for instance, you just specify "data=client" when you're updating.
right -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 15:52, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [02-01-16 09:20]:
following might help :) ::
# <--------- Cool Functions by Crouse--------> # Cool Functions for your .bashrc file.
#myip - finds your current IP if your connected to the internet myip () { lynx -dump -hiddenlinks=ignore -nolist http://checkip.dyndns.org:8245/ | awk '{ print $4 }' | sed '/^$/d; s/^[ ]*//g; s/[ ]*$//g' }
Telcontar:~ # cat /usr/local/bin/whatismyIP #!/bin/bash # Probar tres veces para conseguir la IP, a veces falla. # Try up to three times because it can fail for((i=0;i<3;i++)) do echo "Intento $i" set `wget -qO - checkip.dyndns.org | cut -d":" -f2 | cut -d"<" -f1 | cut -d" " -f2` if test -n "$*" ; then echo "La IP actual es: " $* exit else echo "IP no encontrada, probando otra vez" /bin/sleep 5 fi done Telcontar:~ #
And I have a script from noip which queries my ip addr and reports changes back to noip.com adjusting when necessary. The query runs every 10 minutes but miniminal system load and only reports changes which only happen if I *reset* my modem/router (not power cycle) or there is an extended network outage (which has happened) or I direct the router to request a new ip addr.
Except for wide network outage, I cannot remember a time when my system was inaccessable from the net :) (fingers crossed).
My ISP changes the IP on router reset or power cycle. On ADSL, a phone disconnect does it. On fibre, I'm unsure. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-02-01 11:38, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Anyway, it is not symmetric bandwidth. It is 300 Mbit download, and I don't remember what upload, but much less, perhaps 30. Another competitor offers 300 symmetric. I'll have to check again what I really have now, then get dyndns or something (whatever my router supports directly, I guess).
You can always run a dyndns update from a cronjob.
Yes, I know. But there will be an interval, after my ISP changes my IP till the script runs, that they will not match.
Doesn't really matter much, but those are the terms when you don't have a fixed IP.
Years ago, I managed to write a script that logged into my router and interrogated it for the external IP. In my current router I don't see I can do this.
You don't need to - the dyndns provider will always know where the request is coming from.
The advantage is that it is fast, not requiring to query an external web page.
Hmm, every dyndns provider I am aware of uses http(s) as the interface protocol. You can't avoid the external query. The advantage of having built-in router support is in the reduced latency, i.e. how much of a pause between the IP change and the DNS change. (ignoring the DNS TTL). Many routers allow you to specify arbitrary request strings, so you can work with non-hardcoded dyndns providers. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (13.1°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-01 16:50, Per Jessen wrote:
Many routers allow you to specify arbitrary request strings, so you can work with non-hardcoded dyndns providers.
Not the one provided by my ISP. When it was ADSL I replaced with my own, but I'm not playing with the current one: it is responsible for voice and TV service as well. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 2016-01-31 10:53, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
I came late to that discussion, so that just few notes. I do not trust any tool saving comments outside commented files and specifically I do not trust KDE semantic tools in this way because of various problems and technological instability. My personal impression, but no, thanks. Good for searching, not for storing extra information.
Yes, I agree absolutely.
For music files I modify ID3 tags in Amarok. There is explicit settings to save those data in the files. It works perfectly. For EXIF comments I use digiKam. I'm not sure what should be the difference between the name and description (apparently some applications deal with it differently),
Name is used instead of the file name, if it exists.
so I keep same text in both. It seems Dolphin (KDE4) is not able to read EXIF comments, but I export photos from digiKam to Piwigo web gallery and another tools and it works there perfectly, so that I'm fine with it.
I have to investigate Digikam, whether it can read without alteration my existing photo directories. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Le 31/01/2016 13:19, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
I have to investigate Digikam, whether it can read without alteration my existing photo directories.
no problem at all of this sort. What I do (if you happen to read frenchsee http://dodin.info/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Photo.GestionDesImages) I keep *all* the originals shots (photo) or the last two years (video) only on local archives. I copy this to an 'edited" folder, where I detox the file names (smartphones are ugly on this respect), then I add tags, make basic edits and comments with digikam. after that I upload the result to my own online server with fish/dolphin and sync them to piwigo. There I give permissions (approx: all for the family, public if possible) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 04:53 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
I do not trust any tool saving comments outside commented files and specifically I do not trust KDE semantic tools in this way because of various problems and technological instability. My personal impression, but no, thanks. Good for searching, not for storing extra information.
Indeed! And ultimately its not about trust. it's an operational thing. Storing any such information outside the file means it can be 'left behind'. it means it is platform dependent, the platform being not simply Linux vs OSX vs Windows, but which DM to use, which applicaiton to use. That's the whole point of embedded metatdata. Some file systems even have 'forks' in the file, the file, rather than being an array of bytes, has branches, is itself a database. if effect this is what the exif data is. The 'header' has a number of fields, some of which are pointers. They may point to the actual data. In the case of many video files there may also be a pointer to an embedded snapshot. Now here is the kicker: There are purists out there who say you should !NEVER! edit the exif of the sources images. they say this about the RAW images from cameras and even from scanners and many tiffs, jpgs and gifs that are produced by proprietary systems. They claim that only the vendor really knows what the fields and pointers are, regardless of the standards in this area, regardless of our skills at reverse engineering. Ultimately, those header tables are not much different from the header tables of many program load images and their link tables. We've over half a century of dealing with linkage editing. We've almost as much experience in reverse engineering even when the vendors/manufacturers don't publish data, and many of the video/camera manufacturers DO publish their specs. And we have plenty of examples of the reverse engineering 'hackers' ending up knowing more than the manufacturers and finding bugs and inconsistencies! Its one thing to apply j.random.edit to the exif, as it is to any file, but there are some exif/IPC field s that are clearly there input/update: comment, author, description, copyright. In the limiting case, saying that a copyright stamp should be in an external database that has no inherent association with the image is, in my opinion, lunacy! Ask someone who has had their image or recording pirated and relied on the EMBEDDED copyright information to make their case. I've had this argument with the authors of 'darktable'. They feel its adequate to leave the original files alone and have the extra stuff in a XML sidebar file, and then their software add it when the generate a jpg or gif. They don't see that they, in turn, are applying an edit and generating their own table and set of pointers in this image. And of course its "documented" because their code is open source. The idea that authorship and copyright should be applied as early as possible and in a way that is tightly associated with the ORIGINAL image (rather than derivative works) seems to escape them, but then this gets down to being a legal issue rather than a technological one. Having the copyright claim in a sidebar file or in an external database raises many legal issues. Its not as if we are talking about editing any of the technical fields, the EV, aperture, shutter. In fact editing those fields would not involve restructuring and altering length of fields and hence pointers. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 31/01/2016 15:04, Anton Aylward a écrit :
The idea that authorship and copyright should be applied as early as possible and in a way that is tightly associated with the ORIGINAL image
you are right (of course?) for these infos. I I myself write as most infos as I can in the photo file, but * there as places where you don't want these info to be spread * most photo editor do not share the same meta data tags. they use a special tag with they name (for example who is the last program that edited a photo :-)). I also have a (minor) problem: have at least two places where photo reside: local collection and web collection. The two of them can have tags and comments (readers/users comments). How to collect all these comments. the best way there is to add them in a sidecar file, that is small text file one can sync both ways easily. Photo files now are pretty huge and can't be moved back and forth. I still have to find time to implement this (extract meta data from piwigo mysql to xml sidecar and merge them with digikam ones) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-01-31 15:22, jdd wrote:
the best way there is to add them in a sidecar file, that is small text file one can sync both ways easily. Photo files now are pretty huge and can't be moved back and forth.
I don't see the programs I tried writing those sidecar files. gthumb writes an xml in a subdirectory, I think. If all these programs agreed in a standard way to save the metadata in an accompanying file to each photo, easy to identify and thus transfer when copying somewhere - or not copy... -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
31. ledna 2016 15:04:48 CET, Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> napsal:
On 01/31/2016 04:53 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:
I do not trust any tool saving comments outside commented files and specifically I do not trust KDE semantic tools in this way because of various problems and technological instability. My personal impression, but no, thanks. Good for searching, not for storing extra information.
Indeed! And ultimately its not about trust. it's an operational thing.
Storing any such information outside the file means it can be 'left behind'. it means it is platform dependent, the platform being not simply Linux vs OSX vs Windows, but which DM to use, which applicaiton to use.
That's the whole point of embedded metatdata.
Some file systems even have 'forks' in the file, the file, rather than being an array of bytes, has branches, is itself a database. if effect this is what the exif data is. The 'header' has a number of fields, some of which are pointers. They may point to the actual data. In the case of many video files there may also be a pointer to an embedded snapshot.
Now here is the kicker: There are purists out there who say you should !NEVER! edit the exif of the sources images. they say this about the RAW images from cameras and even from scanners and many tiffs, jpgs and gifs that are produced by proprietary systems. They claim that only the vendor really knows what the fields and pointers are, regardless of the standards in this area, regardless of our skills at reverse engineering.
Ultimately, those header tables are not much different from the header tables of many program load images and their link tables. We've over half a century of dealing with linkage editing. We've almost as much experience in reverse engineering even when the vendors/manufacturers don't publish data, and many of the video/camera manufacturers DO publish their specs.
And we have plenty of examples of the reverse engineering 'hackers' ending up knowing more than the manufacturers and finding bugs and inconsistencies!
Its one thing to apply j.random.edit to the exif, as it is to any file, but there are some exif/IPC field s that are clearly there input/update: comment, author, description, copyright. In the limiting case, saying that a copyright stamp should be in an external database that has no inherent association with the image is, in my opinion, lunacy! Ask someone who has had their image or recording pirated and relied on the EMBEDDED copyright information to make their case.
I've had this argument with the authors of 'darktable'. They feel its adequate to leave the original files alone and have the extra stuff in a XML sidebar file, and then their software add it when the generate a jpg or gif. They don't see that they, in turn, are applying an edit and generating their own table and set of pointers in this image. And of course its "documented" because their code is open source.
The idea that authorship and copyright should be applied as early as possible and in a way that is tightly associated with the ORIGINAL image (rather than derivative works) seems to escape them, but then this gets down to being a legal issue rather than a technological one. Having the copyright claim in a sidebar file or in an external database raises many legal issues.
Its not as if we are talking about editing any of the technical fields, the EV, aperture, shutter. In fact editing those fields would not involve restructuring and altering length of fields and hence pointers.
Yes, yes, yes! And how is it with that interoperability then? Metadata inside files are the most portable and easily managed. -- Vojtěch Zeisek http://trapa.cz/cs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
* Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> [01-31-16 11:16]: [...]
Yes, yes, yes! And how is it with that interoperability then? Metadata inside files are the most portable and easily managed.
The *thing* is, writing exif data to jpg/png/tif/... is not *usually* distructive where writing after-the-fact to a raw (original) image may be and may not be noticed immediately. So non-destructive editing of raw files usually employes a *side-car* file or a database where the edits are recorded and applied to the output file, jpg/png/tif/... So set your meta-data in your camera to be added to the files the camera outputs and maintain pristine originals and do as you please to non-originals. But to maintain a catalogue of your photos and accompanying side-car files requires an application such as darktable or digikam or photoshop or ... and you may become locked to a particular operating system. All about choices. Still, "all about choices" :) -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
31. ledna 2016 19:12:47 CET, Patrick Shanahan <paka@opensuse.org> napsal:
* Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> [01-31-16 11:16]: [...]
Yes, yes, yes! And how is it with that interoperability then? Metadata inside files are the most portable and easily managed.
The *thing* is, writing exif data to jpg/png/tif/... is not *usually* distructive where writing after-the-fact to a raw (original) image may be and may not be noticed immediately. So non-destructive editing of raw files usually employes a *side-car* file or a database where the edits are recorded and applied to the output file, jpg/png/tif/...
So set your meta-data in your camera to be added to the files the camera outputs and maintain pristine originals and do as you please to non-originals.
But to maintain a catalogue of your photos and accompanying side-car files requires an application such as darktable or digikam or photoshop or ... and you may become locked to a particular operating system. All about choices.
Still, "all about choices" :)
Yed. I don't mind to add metadata to RAW files. I work most of the time with JPG (RAW is in an archive) and I wish its metadata to be accessible for various applications. So I choose my tools accordingly... -- Vojtěch Zeisek http://trapa.cz/cs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 01:12 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
So set your meta-data in your camera to be added to the files the camera outputs and maintain pristine originals and do as you please to non-originals.
Not all cameras have the capability to add the exif tags that a user may want. And that's also true for the kind of scans that started this thread. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
* Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> [01-31-16 14:21]:
On 01/31/2016 01:12 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
So set your meta-data in your camera to be added to the files the camera outputs and maintain pristine originals and do as you please to non-originals.
Not all cameras have the capability to add the exif tags that a user may want.
Understood, and I used to write exif/itpc information directly to my raw files and never corrupted one afaict, but have been advised by knowledgable individuals that it is possible and better safe than not. :) Adding information to non-raw files doesn't appear to be a problem and I agree that maintaining side-car or db information for non-raw files is an unwanted chore. But I believe in shooting raw and am not interested in maintaining additional files for non-raw images. A very rare occasional phone image might have need but it would be *really* rare. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 11:49 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
but have been advised by knowledgable individuals that it is possible and better safe than not.
I don't know. There is a lot of FUD running around loose in the world that drapes itself in the mantle of wisdom, which is, at best, based on one influential guy's unfortunate experience with ancient software. If you took the same advice about computers we'd all be using abacuses. ;-) -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 03:00 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On 01/31/2016 11:49 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
but have been advised by knowledgable individuals that it is possible and better safe than not.
I don't know. There is a lot of FUD running around loose in the world that drapes itself in the mantle of wisdom, which is, at best, based on one influential guy's unfortunate experience with ancient software. If you took the same advice about computers we'd all be using abacuses. ;-)
I'm not sure that's worth a ";-)". "Yes it used to be, but we changed all that" applies so well to software. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Dne Ne 31. ledna 2016 14:49:32, Patrick Shanahan napsal(a):
* Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> [01-31-16 14:21]:
On 01/31/2016 01:12 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
So set your meta-data in your camera to be added to the files the camera outputs and maintain pristine originals and do as you please to non-originals.
Not all cameras have the capability to add the exif tags that a user may want.
Understood, and I used to write exif/itpc information directly to my raw files and never corrupted one afaict, but have been advised by knowledgable individuals that it is possible and better safe than not. :)
And was the reason of technical or philosophical (not to modify the only intact original) nature? :-)
Adding information to non-raw files doesn't appear to be a problem and I agree that maintaining side-car or db information for non-raw files is an unwanted chore. But I believe in shooting raw and am not interested in
Exactly. There is standard well documented technology with all needed features (regarding adding some more information like tags, coordinates, description etc), so I really do not understand why each separate SW should make its own incompatible way...
maintaining additional files for non-raw images. A very rare occasional phone image might have need but it would be *really* rare.
-- Vojtěch Zeisek Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/ https://trapa.cz/
* Vojtěch Zeisek <vojtech.zeisek@opensuse.org> [02-01-16 03:52]:
Dne Ne 31. ledna 2016 14:49:32, Patrick Shanahan napsal(a):
* Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> [01-31-16 14:21]:
On 01/31/2016 01:12 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
So set your meta-data in your camera to be added to the files the camera outputs and maintain pristine originals and do as you please to non-originals.
Not all cameras have the capability to add the exif tags that a user may want.
Understood, and I used to write exif/itpc information directly to my raw files and never corrupted one afaict, but have been advised by knowledgable individuals that it is possible and better safe than not. :)
And was the reason of technical or philosophical (not to modify the only intact original) nature? :-)
Maybe a little of both coming from camera makers systems are proprietary, not open, and all outside access must be determined by good guessing and hacker analysis. The problem with writing to raw files is it changes the size, order and location of data withing the file. If any of those items become critical, the file is trashed. And much of exif is not standardized, a field in one vendors raw file may not be accepted in anothers or even the same vendor but a different camera/format. You have read hear of people seeing errors for incorrect unrecognized fields when trying to import photos.
Adding information to non-raw files doesn't appear to be a problem and I agree that maintaining side-car or db information for non-raw files is an unwanted chore. But I believe in shooting raw and am not interested in
Exactly. There is standard well documented technology with all needed features (regarding adding some more information like tags, coordinates, description etc), so I really do not understand why each separate SW should make its own incompatible way...
Vendor lock-in. They want all the money they can get from you and use any means at their disposal to affect that end. Look an M$.
maintaining additional files for non-raw images. A very rare occasional phone image might have need but it would be *really* rare.
As each vendor produces it's own version of raw and varies between cameras and mostly incompatible with other brands, and the cameras employing many differing strategies for capturing images, it is a marvelous wonder that the developers have produced a free software able to work with the myriad versions of raw and produce excellent output. Kudos to the dt developers. gud luk, -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2016 08:34 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Maybe a little of both coming from camera makers systems are proprietary, not open, and all outside access must be determined by good guessing and hacker analysis. The problem with writing to raw files is it changes the size, order and location of data withing the file. If any of those items become critical, the file is trashed. And much of exif is not standardized, a field in one vendors raw file may not be accepted in anothers or even the same vendor but a different camera/format. You have read hear of people seeing errors for incorrect unrecognized fields when trying to import photos.
This is really an incredibly weak argument when it comes down to it. it not only assumes "ALL" when it should state "SOME" in more than one place. Not all vendors are obscureationist. Not all vendors that *were* obscurationist still are. Not all hackers are incompetent. Some seem to know more about the innards of files and mistakes in the vendor software and their conversion algorithms than the vendors themselves[1]. Not all fields are documented, true, but we were only talking about the ones that were and that were implemented by the vendors under discussion. Much of the argument was based on the fact that the exif table had pointers and that altering the size of fields in the table would invalidate those pointers. This assumed the exif editor was unaware of the same. In turn this depends on (a) how well documented the file is and (b) how well the 'hackers' have uncovered details. It also assumes that that the exif editor coders are ignorant of all this and are ignorant of all the last 50 years of computing history about linkage tables. The flaws in the reasoning of these experts is only exceeded by their arrogance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth [1] This isn't odd. Back about 25 years ago a vendor threatened to sue me for reporting a bug. "You couldn't possibly know that without access to our source". I had to depose a detailed example of how i had determined the bug. I also suggested how it could be fixed. And it was, but i received no acknowledgement. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 02:49 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
but have been advised by knowledgable individuals that it is possible and better safe than not. :)
Those individuals denied the skills of others and stood there ground by shouting louder rather than demonstrating with evidence. Yes it is possible to use exiftools to corrupt a file. its also possible to corrupt the same file using VI. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 31/01/2016 20:18, Anton Aylward a écrit :
Not all cameras have the capability to add the exif tags that a user may want.
And that's also true for the kind of scans that started this thread.
most can add copyright infos, the only one really necessary "on board". I myself like better to use metadata on board, but having a small sidecar xml is not too difficult to deal with, but having it only on database is not good, specially for archiving purpose - offline archives do not connect to nothing, certainly not a database jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2016 04:02 AM, jdd wrote:
Not all cameras have the capability to add the exif tags that a user may want.
And that's also true for the kind of scans that started this thread.
most can add copyright infos,
The issue isn't "Most". The issue is that there there are some that can't, so it has to be done manually. If I have one camera can add author/copyright info and other that can't, why should I not be able to make sure that the RAW files from BOTH have the author/copyright info embedded in them in my computer? The same argument can be made for GPS data. Not all my cameras are GPS equipped. I can add GPS data using exiftools. Then as I said, there's scans. Not just of other photos or of old negatives and slides, but also documents using a document scanner. author/copyright and source information is going to be essential to to, for example, researchers. Not everything is a high end, all capable, camera. "Most" does not apply in this line of reasoning. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Le 01/02/2016 17:14, Anton Aylward a écrit :
The issue isn't "Most". The issue is that there there are some that can't, so it has to be done manually. If I have one camera can add author/copyright info and other that can't, why should I not be able to make sure that the RAW files from BOTH have the author/copyright info embedded in them in my computer?
because if a camera don't allow this, chance are than this is because the raw format do not allow it. Raw are completely manufacturer built
"Most" does not apply in this line of reasoning.
only for jpg (and low end cameras do not have raw) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2016 06:04 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
n the limiting case, saying that a copyright stamp should be in an external database that has no inherent association with the image is, in my opinion, lunacy! Ask someone who has had their image or recording pirated and relied on the EMBEDDED copyright information to make their case.
OTOH, relying on EXIF info is usually a wasted effort. Exif information is not immutable. In fact, its useful precisely because it is changeable. Its a stupid thief that doesn't purge exif data immediately upon theft, and crop a little bit and re-save the image, thus destroying every indication of source. -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sigh.
I'm scanning old photographic negatives with a compact scanner (a reflecta X7), and writing comments on the photos with Gwenview. But I have a problem: other programs do not see them.
I don't see them with exif tools, for instance.
I don't see them with shotwell.
Conversely, if I write the comments with shotwell (which is configured to write metadata to the photos, not to a database), I don't see them in gwenview (but they do with "exif", tag "User Comment")
I hesitate to continue writing comments till I verify that they are in fact written to the photo files, and that other programs read them.
I don't see any configuration option in Gwenview regarding this.
(why Gwenview? Because rotating photos is fast here, and it doesn't do any library import. For the moment I only want to put each roll in its own directory. Writing comments is also easy, although they are easyer to see in Shotwell)
I'm not doing photo edit for the moment. Just archiving.
(Old slides have lost a lot of the colour)
- -- Cheers
Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) I just tried gwenview on a picture taken with my phone, already had lots of exif info in it, I used the menu plugins/images/edit all metadata and entered a description then clicked ok. I then used exiftool to display
On 30/01/2016 17:01, Carlos E. R. wrote: the metadata in the picture and along with all the other info the description was as I'd entered it in gwenview. I did this because I remembered using gwenview fro 12.1 to edit exif info and AFAIR it worked. Maybe you need to use exiftool to enter initial info in your pictures to get this to work. Hope this helps Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-02-12 12:04, Dave Plater wrote:
I just tried gwenview on a picture taken with my phone, already had lots of exif info in it, I used the menu plugins/images/edit all metadata and entered a description then clicked ok. I then used exiftool to display the metadata in the picture and along with all the other info the description was as I'd entered it in gwenview. I did this because I remembered using gwenview fro 12.1 to edit exif info and AFAIR it worked. Maybe you need to use exiftool to enter initial info in your pictures to get this to work. Hope this helps
All my pictures already contain EXIF info, as generated by the camera. Maybe you are using a different version than me? I'm at openSUSE 13.1. Or maybe you are using a different setting that haven't located. Ah, wait. You are using "menu plugins/images/edit all metadata". I don't. In View, view mode (not browse mode) there is a left panel. At the top half of the panel, there are several metadata entries, copied from exif data in the displayed photo. At the bottom half of that panel there is a big "description" box. The title of the box says "semantic info". It is not the exif description. Your method works, but it is harder to reach, as compared to just start typing on the description field displayed on the panel. It is not even possible to add a button to quick access that menu. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
participants (13)
-
Anton Aylward -
Bob Williams -
Carlos E. R. -
Carlos E.R. -
Dave Plater -
David T-G -
gumb -
jdd -
John Andersen -
Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen -
Vojtěch Zeisek